Fri kultur

@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ selv etter at modemet er sl som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket “folk som er ikke pålogget.” Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra internettets effekt. -

Men i motsetning til i boken Code, er argumentet her ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Den tradisjonen er m sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av “fri kultur”—ikke “fri” som i “fri bar” (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri -programvarebevegelsen^[2]), men +programvarebevegelsen^[2]), men “fri” som i “talefrihet”, “fritt marked”, “frihandel”, “fri konkurranse”, “fri vilje” og “frie valg”. En fri kultur støtter @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ definert det tjuende du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende. -

Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon @@ -170,13 +170,13 @@ Safire beskrev Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og konservative Ted Stevens”, formulerte han kanskje det enkleste uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han: - +

Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av makt—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt—bør være bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen -og det største uttrykk for demokrati.^[3] +og det største uttrykk for demokrati.^[3]

Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til Fri Kultur, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av @@ -219,11 +219,11 @@ denne boken er skrevet.

^[1] David Pogue, “Don't Just Chat, Do Something,” New York Times, 30. januar 2000 -

^[2] +

^[2] Richard M. Stallman, Fri programvare, Frie samfunn 57 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002). -

^[3] William Safire, “The Great Media Gulp,” New York -Times, 22. mai 2003. +

^[3] William Safire, “The Great Media Gulp,” New York +Times, 22. mai 2003.

Kapittel 0. Introduksjon

17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ begynte Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over -bakken, “i ubestemt grad, oppover”.^[4] I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om +bakken, “i ubestemt grad, oppover”.^[4] 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? @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer n 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? -

I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom strakk seg “i ubestemt grad, oppover,” så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette. -

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 @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ for utallige s 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.^[5] +eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.^[5]

“Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.”

@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ det tar flere sider eller kun noen f et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til aktuelle teknologiene. Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den. Idéer som var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen. -

Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderl oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831. Men han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre. - +

Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ det h Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble utført. … Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en -radio-“musikk-boks”.^[6] +radio-“musikk-boks”.^[6]

Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye @@ -355,16 +355,16 @@ Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet støy fra “radio.”. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin -oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. +oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.

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.^[7] +starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.^[7]

Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi, var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik, - +

Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ for hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger … en komplett endring i maktforholdene rundt radio … og muligens fjerningen av det nøye begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til -makt.^[8] +makt.^[8]

RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble @@ -388,8 +388,8 @@ FM-radio ville bli forkr

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.^[9] -

+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.^[9] +

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 @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ kan brukes til av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år -tidligere.^[10] Det tallet kan uten +tidligere.^[10] Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.

Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting @@ -457,8 +457,8 @@ er produsert og solgt eller produsert for menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah Webster publiserte sin “Reader”, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi, -så var det kommersiell kultur. - +så var det kommersiell kultur. +

Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert. Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var @@ -473,13 +473,13 @@ styrt av lovverket. Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse -eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.^[11] Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av +eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.^[11] 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.

Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt -fjernet.^[12] Internettet har satt scenen +fjernet.^[12] Internettet har satt scenen for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå påvirket det. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ hovedsak “eiendomsretten” vil bli beskyttet. “Krigen” som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet—det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin -“egen terroristkrig”^[13]—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og +“egen terroristkrig”^[13]—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for eiendomsrett eller mot den. @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de f av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig -kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,^[14] opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet +kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,^[14] opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur. @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ fred. Det er ingen god grunn for 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. -

Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om “eiendomsrett”. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ teknologiene til internettet “tar krav til “eiendomsrett”. Det er like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom. -

Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn @@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ F fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme? Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt? -

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 @@ -675,10 +675,10 @@ de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige akt deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med. -

^[4] +

^[4] St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 3 (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18. -

^[5] +

^[5] USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være å “ta” hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for @@ -686,21 +686,21 @@ meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, “ Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship”, Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også Paul Goldstein, Real Property (Mineola, N.Y.: -Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. -

^[6] +Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. +

^[6] Lawrence Lessing, Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard Armstrong (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209. -

^[7] Se “Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,” +

^[7] Se “Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,” første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha, tilgjengelig fra link #1. -

^[8]Lessing, 226. -

^[9] +

^[8]Lessing, 226. +

^[9] Lessing, 256. -

^[10] +

^[10] Amanda Lenhart, “The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at Internet Access and the Digital Divide,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra link #2. -

^[11] +

^[11] Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov. Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle @@ -709,17 +709,17 @@ interesse n opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. - -

^[12] + +

^[12] Se Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (New York: -Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. -

^[13] +Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. +

^[13] Amy Harmon, “Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,” New York Times, 17. januar 2002. -

^[14] +

^[14] Neil W. Netanel, “Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,” -Yale Law Journal 106 (1996): 283. +Yale Law Journal 106 (1996): 283.

Del I. “Piratvirksomhet”

Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot “piratvirksomhet”. De presise konturene av dette @@ -730,8 +730,8 @@ noteark,

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.^[15] -

+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.^[15] +

I dag er vi midt inne i en annen “krig” mot “piratvirksomhet”. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen. @@ -770,17 +770,17 @@ kreative arbeidet til andre, s 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. -

Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som “hvis verdi, så -rettighet”-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter ^[16]—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha +rettighet”-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter ^[16]—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne verdien. Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes -leirbål.^[17] Det fantes +leirbål.^[17] Det fantes “verdi” (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en “rettighet”—til og med mot jentespeiderne. -

Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle akt håndtere byrden pålagt av loven—til og med byrden som den bysantiske kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad ved å drive forretning. -

Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om @@ -822,33 +822,33 @@ digital teknologi kunne sluppet l 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, “Fremveksten -av den kreative klasse”^[18] +av den kreative klasse”^[18] Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne kreative klassen.

Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med merkelappen “piratvirksomhet” i sin rette sammenheng. -

^[15] +

^[15] Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield). -

^[16] +

^[16] Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, “Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation,” Notre Dame Law Review 65 (1990): 397. -

^[17] +

^[17] Lisa Bannon, “The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,” Wall Street Journal, 21. august 1996, tilgjengelig fra link #3; Jonathan Zittrain, “Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,” Boston -Globe, 24. november 2002. -

^[18] +Globe, 24. november 2002. +

^[18] I The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@ kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske 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. +vanskeligere.

Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne

I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn Plane Crazy. @@ -886,12 +886,12 @@ bl 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!^[19] +var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!^[19]

Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: “Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like -bra.” +bra.”

Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde—unntatt fra @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ popul Steamboat Bill, Jr. kom før Disneys tegnefilm Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat -Bill,^[20] og begge bygger på en felles sang +Bill,^[20] og begge bygger på en felles sang som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i The Jazz Singer at vi får Steamboat Willie. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat @@ -924,7 +924,7 @@ at vi f

Denne “låningen” var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien. Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt -ham.^[21] Det samme gjorde mange andre. +ham.^[21] Det samme gjorde mange andre. Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger—små variasjoner over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ Planet (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne. -

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. @@ -973,23 +973,25 @@ Vi kan kalle dette “Disney-kreativ litt misvisende. Det er mer presist “Walt Disney-kreativitet”—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet. -

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.^[22] That means that for thirty -years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had -an “exclusive right” to control certain uses of the work. To -use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the -copyright owner. -

-At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain. No -permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and, -hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a “lawyer-free zone.” -Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free 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. +

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.^[22] Det betyr at i +tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks +opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en “eksklusiv rett” til a +kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse +opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra +opphavsrettsinnehaveren. +

+Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir +allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette +verket. Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en +“advokat-fri sone”. Det meste av innhold fra det nittende +århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på 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.

Dette er slik det alltid har vært—inntil ganske nylig. For @@ -1002,10 +1004,10 @@ fra noen. Tilsvarende for i dag ville v bygge på uten tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.

-Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on “Walt Disney -creativity.” Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until -recently, and except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and -quite universal. +Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på “Walt +Disney-kreativitet”. Det har heller ikke USA. Normen med fri kultur +har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og +svært universell.

Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur: @@ -1016,95 +1018,98 @@ over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.

-Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an -unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much -about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories -that these “graphic novels” tell. For the Japanese, manga cover -every aspect of social life. For us, comics are “men in -tights.” And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled -with readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures -distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this interestingly -different way. +Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er +et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss. Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye +rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på +historiene i disse “grafiske historiene” forteller. For en +japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv. For oss er +tegneserier “menn i strømpebukser”. Og uansett er det ikke +slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway +for den saks skyld. Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig +måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.

Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga. Det er å beskrive en variant av manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.

-This is the phenomenon of doujinshi. Doujinshi are -also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the -creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is -just a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the -art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A -doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it -differently—with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the -character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for -what makes the doujinshi sufficiently “different.” But they -must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there -are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject -any copycat comic that is merely a copy. -

-These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are -huge. More than 33,000 “circles” of creators from across Japan -produce these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese -come together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country, -to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream -commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously 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. -

-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 American copyright -law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly -“derivative works.” There is no general practice by doujinshi -artists of securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the -practice is simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt -Disney did with Steamboat Bill, Jr. Under both -Japanese and American law, that “taking” without 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. +Dette er fenomenet doujinshi. Doujinshi er også +tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier. En rik etikk styrer +de som skaper doujinshi. Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det +bare er en kopi. Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til +kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig. En +doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den +i en annen retning—med en annen historie-linje. Eller tegneserien kan +beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet. Det er ingen +bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig +“forskjellig”. Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses +som ekte doujinshi. Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for +å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi. +

+Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet. Det +er enorme. Mer en 33 000 “sirkler” av skapere over hele Japan +som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet. Mer en 450 000 +japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i +langet, for å bytte og selge dem. Dette markedet er parallelt med det +kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet. På noen måter konkurrerer det +åpenbart med det markedet, 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 til tross +for loven. +

+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 opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på +papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig. +Doujinshi er helt klart “avledede verk”. Det er ingen generell +praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos +manga-skaperne. I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre +har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med Steamboat Bill, +Jr. For både japansk og USAs lov, er å “ta” uten +tillatelse fra den 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.

-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, “The -early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan -now. … American comics were born out of copying each 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” and building -from them.^[23] -

-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, “there are these rules -and you have to stick to them.” There are things Superman -“cannot” do. “As a creator, it's frustrating having to -stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.” -

+Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og +etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga +blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, “I +amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår 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” og bygge basert på dem.^[23] +

+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, “er det +en rekke regler, og du må følge dem”. Det er ting som Supermann +“ikke kan” gjøre. “For en som lager tegneserier er det +frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år +gamle.” +

Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen. Noen sier at det nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som forklarer denne reduksjonen. Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven -bannlyser ikke doujinshi.^[24] +bannlyser ikke doujinshi.^[24]

-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 doujinshi are permitted -rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners -don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi, -and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi -artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this -“free taking” by the doujinshi culture? +Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner, +er at mekanismen som produserer denne “hold hendene +borte”-responsen ikke er forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som +helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den, +men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere +ikke saksøker. Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det +finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt +doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å +blokkere denne “frie takingen” hos doujinshi-kulturen?

-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. “We don't have enough lawyers,” he -told me one afternoon. There “just aren't enough resources to -prosecute cases like this.” +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. “Vi har ikke nok advokater”, +fortalte han meg en ettermiddag. Det er “bare ikke nok ressurser til +å tiltale tilfeller som dette”.

Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en @@ -1121,25 +1126,25 @@ Hvis du er som meg et ti begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.

-We live in a world that celebrates “property.” I am one of -those celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also -believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call -“intellectual property.”^[25] A -large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, -and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property. -

-But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of -value out there that “property” doesn't capture. I don't mean -“money can't buy you love,” but rather, value that is plainly -part of a process of production, including commercial as well as -noncommercial production. If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils -to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking -as wrong— even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was -nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from -Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the -taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered -“fair.” There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms -because the Grimms' work was in the public domain. +Vi lever i en verden som feirer “eiendom”. Jeg er en av de som +feierer. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på +verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller +“immateriell eiendom”.^[25] Et +stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne +samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter. +

+Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av +verdi der ute som “eiendom” ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke +“kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger” men heller, at en verdi +som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og +ikke-kommersiell produksjon. Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett +med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme +det som galt—selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir +oppdaget. Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at +Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene. Det var intet galt +med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som +“rimelig”. Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm +fordi deres verker var allemannseie.

Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok—eller mer generelt, tingene @@ -1155,22 +1160,22 @@ n på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.

-Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that -the copycat comic artists are “stealing.” This form of Walt -Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular -find it hard to say why. +Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si +at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere “stjeler”. Denne formen for +Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt +advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.

-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. (“Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may -I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were -wrong about quantum physics?”) Acting companies perform adaptations -of the works of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does -anyone believe Shakespeare would be better spread -within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse -that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood -goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the -late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997. +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. (“Unnskyld meg, professor +Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å +vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?”) Teatertropper viser frem +bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser. +(Er det noen som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer +spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for +Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til +først?) Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem +astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.

Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten @@ -1184,25 +1189,26 @@ ta—frie samfunn muligens i st alle samfunn.

-The hard question is therefore not whether a culture is -free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is -“How free is this culture?” How much, and -how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that -freedom limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top -ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread -broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To -musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether -affiliated with a studio or not? +Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke om en kultur +er fri. Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet +er i stedet “hvor fri er denne kulturen +er?” Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre +å ta, og bygge på? Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer? Til +medlemmer av kongefamilien? Til de ti største selskapene på New +York-børsen? Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt, +uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke? Til musikere +generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt, +uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?

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. -

^[19] +

^[19] Leonard Maltin, Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35. -

^[20] +

^[20] Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie, @@ -1215,67 +1221,67 @@ No. 1” (Baron), og ““The Turkey in the Straw,” var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til forfatteren. -

^[21] +

^[21] Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, “The Mouse that Ate the Public Domain,” Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra link #5. -

^[22] +

^[22] -Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an -initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the -“average” term by determining the weighted average of total -registrations for any particular year, and the proportion renewing. Thus, if -100 copyrights are registered in year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the -renewal term is 28 years, then the average term is 32.2 years. For the -renewal data and other relevant data, see the Web site associated with this -book, available at link +Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en +initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode. Jeg har beregnet +“gjennomsnittlig” vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av +de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger. Hvis 100 +opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og +fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2 +år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet +denne boka, tilgjengelig fra link #6. -

^[23] +

^[23] For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, Reinventing Comics (New York: Perennial, 2000). -

^[24] +

^[24] -See Salil K. Mehra, “Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain +Se Salil K. Mehra, “Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?” -Rutgers Law Review 55 (2002): 155, -182. “[T]here might be a collective economic rationality that would -lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing legal actions for -infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga 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.” -

^[25] - -The term intellectual property is of relatively -recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and -Copywrongs, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). See -also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York: -Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of -“property” rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and -trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different. - +Rutgers Law Review 55 (2002): 155, 182. “det +kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og +anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at +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.” +

^[25] + +Begrepet immateriell eiendom er av relativ ny +opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and +Copywrongs, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se +også Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York: +Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med +“eiendoms”-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter, +varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse +rettighetene er svært forskjellige.

Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”

-In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for -producing what we would call “photographs.” Appropriately -enough, they were called “daguerreotypes.” The process was -complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals -and a few 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.) -

-Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong. This -pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make “automatic -pictures.” William Talbot soon discovered a process for making -“negatives.” But because the negatives were glass, and had to -be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the -1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of -a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it -was still not a process within reach of most amateurs. +I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å +produsere det vi ville kalle “fotografier”. Rimelig nok ble de +kalt “daguerreotyper”. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og +feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og +velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening +som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør, +ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.) +

+Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper +sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å +lage “automatiske bilder”. William Talbot oppdaget snart en +prosess for å lage “negativer”. Men da negativene var av +glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På +1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det +å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og +dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de +fleste amatører.

Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke @@ -1287,11 +1293,11 @@ kunne s vesentlig. Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk kunne utvide andelen fotografer.

-Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of -it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis -of its simplicity. “You press the button and we do the -rest.”^[26] As he described in -The Kodak Primer: +Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med +dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag +dens enkelhet. “Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser +resten.”^[26] Som han beskrev det i +The Kodak Primer:

Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan @@ -1300,7 +1306,7 @@ tilstrekkelig intelligens til en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell kunnskap om kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten -et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.^[27] +et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.^[27]

For $25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble @@ -1310,31 +1316,31 @@ eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble 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.^[28] Salget til Eastman Kodak i -samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.^[29] -

- - -The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It -was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places -they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography gave them the ability to -record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As -author Brian Coe notes, “For the first time the snapshot album -provided the man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its -activities. … For the first time in history there exists an authentic -visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made -without [literary] interpretation or bias.”^[30] -

-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 be deployed by amateurs in any -useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner -and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at -its “quality”; professionals would discount it as -irrelevant. But watch a child study how best to frame a picture and you get -a sense of the experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic -tools gave ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any -tools could have before. +prosent.^[28] Salget til Eastman Kodak i +samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.^[29] +

+ + +Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke +økonomisk. Den var sosial. Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et +glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem +muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i +stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, “For første +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.”^[30] +

+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 +Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere. Barrièren for å uttrykke +seg var senket. Snobber ville fnyse over “kvaliteten”, +profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant. Men se et barn studere +hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags +kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde. Demokratiske verktøy ga +vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy +kunne ha gjort før.

Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre. Eastmans genialitet var åpenbart en viktig del. Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans @@ -1342,22 +1348,21 @@ oppfinnelse vokste i var ogs fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen, amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og -trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.^[31] +trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.^[31]

-The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly -familiar. The photographer was “taking” something from the -person or building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of -value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was -not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, -too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought -valuable. -

+Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent +ut. Fotografen “tok” noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble +fotografert—røvet til seg noe av verdi. Noen trodde til og med at han +tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene +som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse +fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i. +

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.^[32]) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting. +annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.^[32]) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting. På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra Steamboat Bill, Jr. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden. @@ -1369,76 +1374,78 @@ var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt. Frihet var utgangspunktet. (Loven ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet -fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.^[33]) -

-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 permission. Perhaps -Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it -developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission -were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the -“theft” committed by the photographer. Just as Napster -benefited from the copyright infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak -would be benefiting from the “image-right” infringement of its -photographers. We could 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. -

- - - -But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard -to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement -for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography -would have existed. It would have grown in importance over -time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they -did—since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of -the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people -would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been -realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology -of expression would have been realized. If you drive through San -Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted -over with colorful and striking images, and the logo “Just -Think!” in place of the name of a school. But there's little that's -“just” cerebral in the projects that these busses enable. -These buses are filled with technologies that teach kids to tinker with -film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the film of your VCR. Rather the -“film” of digital cameras. Just Think! is a project that -enables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique the filmed -culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to -more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children -to learn something about media by doing something with media. By doing, -they think. By tinkering, they learn. -

-These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly -so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen -dramatically. As one analyst puts it, “Five years ago, a good -real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get -professional quality for $595.”^[34] -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 “media literacy.” -

- -“Media literacy,” as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of -Just Think!, puts it, “is the ability … to understand, analyze, -and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the -way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the -way people access it.” -

-This may seem like an odd way to think about “literacy.” For -most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway -and noticing split infinitives are the things that “literate” -people know about. -

-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,^[35] it is increasingly important -to understand the “grammar” of media. For just as there is a -grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as -kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to -write media by constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media. +fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.^[33]) +

+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 +Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de +utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på. Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke +var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra +“tyveriet” begått av fotografer. På samme måte som Napster nøt +fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak +nytt fordeler fra “bilde-rettighets”-brudd til deres +fotografer. Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for +tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene. Vi kan +forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser. +

+ + + +Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være +svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det +gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det. +Fotografering ville eksistert. Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid. +Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de +gjorde—siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem +av godkjenningssystemet. Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk +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. Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco, +kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og +iøynefallende bilder, og logoen “Just Think!” i stedet for +navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er “bare” mentalt i +prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt med +teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film. Ikke filmen til Eastman. Ikke +en gang filmen i din videospiller. I stedet er det snakk om +“filmen” til digitale kamera. Just Think! er et prosjekt som +gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere +den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg. Hvert år besøker +disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre +barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media. Ved å +gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de. +

+Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere +og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt +dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, “for fem år siden kostet et +godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du +få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.”^[34] 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 +“medie-skriveføre” eller “mediekompetanse”. +

+ +“Media-skriveføre,” eller “mediekompetanse” som +administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, “er +evnen til … å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål +er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de +er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker +dem”. +

+Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på +“skrivefør”. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og +skrive. “Skriveføre” folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway +og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver. +

+Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med +TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000 +reklameinnslag,^[35] så er det mer og mer +viktig å forstå “gramatikken” til media. For på samme måte som +det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og +akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så +lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i +begynnelsen) grusom media.

Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om @@ -1456,26 +1463,29 @@ Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med 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. -

-This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as -Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern -California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School -of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about “the -placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and -texture.”^[36] But as computers open -up an interactive space where a story is “played” as well as -experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost, -and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered -the narrative of science fiction. But when he tried to design a computer -game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to -lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not -obvious, even to a wildly successful author.^[37] -

-This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes, -“people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t -is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If -a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led.” If you know -you were led through a film, the film has failed. +

+Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da +det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved +Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor +ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om +“plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og +tekstur”.^[36] Men etter hvert som +datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir +“spillt” i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den +enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre +teknikker nødvendig. Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret +fortellerstemmen til science fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et +dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte +lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at +de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket +forfatter.^[37] +

+Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager +filmer. Som Daley skriver, “folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de +blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra +å se det, så du aner det ikke. Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du +ikke at du har vært ledet.” Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en +film, så har filmen feilet.

Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren—til en som går ut over tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer—handler ikke om å lage @@ -1488,20 +1498,20 @@ spr skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne skrive.

-“Read-only.” Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere. -Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth -century. -

-The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It -could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding -the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that -enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this -literacy in particular, is to “empower people to choose the -appropriate language for what they need to create or -express.”^[38] It is to enable -students “to communicate in the language of the twenty-first -century.”^[39] -

+“ikke kunne skrive.” Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert +andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende +århundre. +

+Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes. Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det +kan bli både lesing og skriving. Eller i det minste lesing og bedre +forståelse for håndverket å skrive. Eller det beste, lesing og forstå +verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med +enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å “gi folket +myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller +uttrykke”.^[38] Det gir studenter +mulighet “til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste +århundret”.^[39] +

Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for @@ -1513,68 +1523,70 @@ en fiasko. Men Daley og Barish gjennomf mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene visste noe om—våpen-relatert vold.

-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 away. The -“kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,” -said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do what -education should be about—learning how to express themselves. -

-Using whatever “free web stuff they could find,” and relatively -simple tools to enable the kids to mix “image, sound, and -text,” Barish said this class produced a series of projects that -showed something about gun violence that few would otherwise -understand. This was an issue close to the lives of these students. The -project “gave them a tool and empowered them to be able to both -understand it and talk about it,” Barish explained. That tool -succeeded in creating expression—far more successfully and powerfully -than could have been created using only text. “If you had said to -these students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their -hands up and gone and done something else,” Barish described, in -part, no doubt, because expressing themselves in text is not something these -students can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which -these ideas can be expressed well. The power of this -message depended upon its connection to this form of expression. -

- - - -“But isn't education about teaching kids to write?” I asked. In -part, of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education, -Daley explained, is about giving students a way of “constructing -meaning.” To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching -writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part—and -increasingly, not the most powerful part—of constructing meaning. As -Daley explained in the most moving part of our interview, +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. “Ungene +dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta”, sa Barish. De jobbet +hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle +om—å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg. +

+Ved å bruke hva som helst av “fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne +finne”, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å +blande “bilde, lyd og tekst”, sa Barish at denne klassen +produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få +ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse +studentene. Prosjektet “ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at +de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det”, forklarer +Barish. Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk—mye mer vellykket +og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst. +“Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i +tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe +annet”, forklarer Barish. Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg +selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er +tekstform en form som kan uttrykke disse idéene godt. +Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for +uttrykk. +

+ + + +“Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?” spurte +jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis. Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive? +Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å +“konstruere mening”. Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å +si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å +stave. Tekstforming er bare en del—og i større grad ikke den +kraftigste delen—for å konstruere mening. Som Daley forklarte i den +mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,

-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 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.… -
-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, -“I need to explain this and I really need to write something.” -And as one of the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5, -6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right. -
- -Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say -something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually -needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come -to understand that they had a lot of power with this language. +Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt +du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke. +Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill, +han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen +din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting. Men han kan ikke lese teksten +din. Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier “Johnny, du er analfabet. +Ingenting du gjør betyr noe”. Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan +avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv. Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil +han avvise deg. Men hvis du i stedet sier, “Vel, med alle disse +tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet. Spill musikk til +meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener +reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere +temaet”. Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og … si +“La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten +film”. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du +forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.… +
+Dette bemyndiger enormt. Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det +har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer +faktumet “jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å +skrive noe”. Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive +om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig. +
+ +Fordi de trengte det. Det var en grunn til å gjøre det. De trengte å si +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.

Da to fly 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 @@ -1584,32 +1596,33 @@ disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde v forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.

-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. -

-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 was also the Internet. -

- -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 by a student -on the “Just Think!” bus, the visual images could be mixed with -sound or text. +Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse. Det var musikk +spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers +over skjermen. Det var en formel for intervjuer. Det var +“balanse” og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik +vi i stadig større grad forventer det, “nyheter som +underholdning”, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie. +

+Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om “tragedien +11. september”, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i +tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av +fortellinger om de samme hendelsene. Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde +en veldig annerledes smak. Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget +bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med +tekst. Noen tilbød åpne brev. Det var lydopptak. Det var sinne og +frustrasjon. Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng. Det var, kort og +godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin +bruker begrepet i hans bok Cyber Rights, rundt en +nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden. Det var +ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet. +

+ +Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet—selv om +jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises. Jeg +ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale. For på +samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder. +Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på “Just +Think!”-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.

Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse @@ -1647,32 +1660,34 @@ 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.

-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 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.^[40] -

-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.^[41] And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation -remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place -for “democratic deliberation” to occur. +Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg. Demokrati betyr at folket +styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg. I vår tradisjon betyr det +også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning. Dette var idéen som +fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske +nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige +“demokratiet i Amerika”. Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som +fascinerte han—det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk +retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere. Og det som fascinerte +han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge +frem. De diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var +“riktig” resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om +“riktig”resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli +enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle +avsluttes.^[40] +

+Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det +ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en +innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.^[41] +Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen. +Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for +å gjennomføre “demokratisk diskusjon”.

Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal skje. Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm 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.^[42] Vi sier det våre venner vil +ekstrem.^[42] Vi sier det våre venner vil høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.

@@ -1694,18 +1709,18 @@ det. 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. -

-One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the -mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott -“misspoke” at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially -praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that -this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight -hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The -bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of -the same “misspeaking” emerged. Finally, the story broke back -into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate -majority leader.^[43] +lese dem en effekt. +

+En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de +store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg “sa +feil” på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste +segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at +historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer. +Det skjedde. Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren. +Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og +flere tilfeller av tilsvarende “feiluttalelser” opp. Så dukket +historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å +trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.^[43]

Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler. @@ -1722,69 +1737,69 @@ er popul likemanns-generert rangering.

-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 movement and -a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the -absence of a financial “conflict of interest.” “I think -you have to take the conflict of interest” out of journalism, Winer -told me. “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.” -

-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.^[44] It also needs to sustain a -more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the -Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink -with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter -over and over that her 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 they were writing “the -story.”) -

Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the -debate—“amateur” 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.^[45] And it drives readers to read -across the range of accounts and “triangulate,” as Winer puts -it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are “communicating directly with our -constituency, and the middle man is out of it”—with all the -benefits, and costs, that might entail. -

- -Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with -blogs. “It's going to become an essential skill,” Winer -predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as -well. It's not clear that “journalism” is happy about -this—some journalists have been told to curtail their -blogging.^[46] But it is clear that we are -still in transition. “A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up -exercises,” Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before -this space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this -space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on -copyright), Winer said, “we will be the last thing that gets shut -down.” -

-This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because “you -don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.” -That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and -more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will -change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and -misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be -criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has -been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore -when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and -criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million -blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be -something extraordinary to report. -

-John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, -as his Web site describes it, is “human learning and … the -creation of knowledge ecologies for creating … innovation.” +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 +programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell +fraværet av finansiell “interessekonflikt”. “Jeg tror du +må ta interessekonflikten” ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer +meg. “En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt, +eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan +rydde den av veien.” +

+Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer +konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra +offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at de +gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne +ansatte.^[44] De trenger også å opprettholde +en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en +melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på +satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba +reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte +tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var +grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var dem som +skrev “historien”.) +

Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i +debatten—“amatør” 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 Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når +hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle +hva de hadde sett.^[45] Og det får lesere +til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og “triangulere”, +som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer, +“kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er +fjernet”— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg. +

+ +Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av +blogger. “Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet”, spår +Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører. +Det er ikke klart at “journalismen” er glad for +dette—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin +blogging.^[46] Men det er klart at vi +fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. “Mye av det vi gjør nå er +oppvarmingsøvelser”, fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før +dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i +dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa +Wiener at “vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned”. +

+Slik tale påvirker demokratiet. Winer mener dette skjer fordi “du +trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en +portvokter”. Det er sant. Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en +annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener, +og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige +temaer. Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt. Det er +vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre. Det +er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å +innse at han tok feil. Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere +at noen har bevist at han tok feil. Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og +kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner +blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det +være noe ekstraordært å rapportere. +

+John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i +følge hans eget nettsted, er “menneskelig læring og … å skape +kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon”.

Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt. Jeg er @@ -1793,16 +1808,17 @@ demokratiet. Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse teknologiene påvirker læring.

-As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When “a lot of us grew -up,” he explains, that tinkering was done “on motorcycle -engines, lawnmower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.” But -digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering—with -abstract ideas though in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only -think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital -technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker -with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind -of bricolage, or “free collage,” as Brown calls it. Many get to -add to or transform the tinkering of many others. +Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle. Da “mange av oss vokste opp”, +forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort “pa motorsykkelmotorer, +gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre”. Men digitale +teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling—med abstrakte idéer i sin +konkrete form. Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et +reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker. Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan +de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og +se hvordan det blir gjort. Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags +*bricolage* eller “fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling”, som +Brown kaller det. Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på +fiklingen til mange andre.

Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS). FS/OSS er programvare der @@ -1833,7 +1849,7 @@ fremmer mye mer enn tekst. “Nette hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film …da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.” -

Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler @@ -1849,7 +1865,7 @@ grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre. Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel 10) har utviklet et kraftfylt argument til fordel for “retten til å fikle” slik det -gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.^[47] Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det +gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.^[47] 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.

@@ -1862,7 +1878,7 @@ f undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. … We bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen”. -

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 @@ -1871,28 +1887,28 @@ teknologien. “Ikke måten å drive en kultur på”, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi møtte i kapittel 9, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av nedstemthet. -

^[26] +

^[26] Reese V. Jenkins, Images and Enterprise (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112. -

^[27] +

^[27] Brian Coe, The Birth of Photography (New York: -Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. -

^[28] +Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. +

^[28] Jenkins, 177. -

^[29] +

^[29] Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178. -

^[30] +

^[30] Coe, 58. -

^[31] +

^[31] For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, Pavesich @@ -1900,101 +1916,102 @@ mot N.E. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905); Foster-Milburn Co. mot Chinn, 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); Corliss mot Walker, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894). -

^[32] +

^[32] -Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” -Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. -

^[33] +Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”, +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. +

^[33] -See Melville B. Nimmer, “The Right of Publicity,” -Law and Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203; William -L. Prosser, “Privacy,” California Law -Review 48 (1960) 398–407; White -v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395 -(9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). -

^[34] +Se Melville B. Nimmer, “The Right of Publicity”, Law +and Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, +“Privacy”, California Law Review 48 +(1960) 398–407; White mot Samsung +Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), +sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). +

^[34] H. Edward Goldberg, “Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,” -cadalyst, February 2002, available at link #7. -

^[35] +cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra link #7. +

^[35] Judith Van Evra, Television and Child Development (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); “Findings on -Family and TV Study,” Denver Post, 25 May +Family and TV Study”, Denver Post, 25. mai 1997, B6. -

^[36] +

^[36] Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002. - -

^[37] + +

^[37] -See Scott Steinberg, “Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,” E!online, -4 November 2000, available at link #8; -“Timeline,” 22 November 2000, available at link #9. -

^[38] +Se Scott Steinberg, “Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs”, E!online, +4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #8; +“Timeline”, 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #9. +

^[38] -Intervju med Daley og Barish. -

^[39] +Intervju med Daley og Barish. +

^[39] ibid. -

^[40] +

^[40] Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, bk. 1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), kap. 16. -

^[41] +

^[41] -Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, “Deliberation Day,” +Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, “Deliberation Day”, Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2) (2002): 129. -

^[42] +

^[42] Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192. -

^[43] +

^[43] Noah Shachtman, “With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the -Pot,” New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5. -

^[44] +Pot”, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5. +

^[44] Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003. -

^[45] +

^[45] John Schwartz, “Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of -Information Online,” New York Times, 2 -February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, “Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, -but Strong Overall,” Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, -available at link #10. -

^[46] - -See Michael Falcone, “Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?” -New York Times, 29 September 2003, C4. (“Not -all news organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin -Sites, a CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of -the war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' -request. Last year Steve Olafson, a Houston Chronicle -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.”) -

^[47] +Information Online”, New York Times, 2 februar +2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, “Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but +Strong Overall”, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003, +tilgjengelig fra link +#10. +

^[46] + +Se Michael Falcone, “Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?” +New York Times, 29. september 2003, C4. (“Ikke +alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som +blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om +sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å publisere 12 dager senere på +forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en +Houston Chronicle-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en +personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av +temaene og folkene som han dekket”) +

^[47] Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, “Technological Access Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,” Communications of the Association for Computer Machinery 43 (2000): 9. -

Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger

Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York. Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var @@ -2109,8 +2126,8 @@ detaljer, var hovedpoenget n opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele saksøkerne nesten $100 milliarder—seks ganger det totale overskuddet til filmindustrien i -2001.^[48] -

+2001.^[48] +

Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre. De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En onkel var advokat. Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA. De krevde å få vite hvor mye penger Jesse hadde. Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra @@ -2144,9 +2161,9 @@ La oss legge loven til side for et moralen i et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er en spesielt mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1 million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt. -Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.^[49] Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å +Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.^[49] Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å påvirke og styre politikken. Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en -student for å drive en søkemotor?^[50] +student for å drive en søkemotor?^[50]

23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde @@ -2164,20 +2181,20 @@ konservativ, og det samme gj 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.” -

^[48] +

^[48] Tim Goral, “Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,” Professional Media Group LCC 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443. -

^[49] +

^[49] Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001) (27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for the Arts, More Than One in a Blue Moon (2000). -

^[50] +

^[50] Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i “KaZaA and @@ -2194,7 +2211,7 @@ er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens borgerskap—inntil nå.

4.1. Film

-Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.^[51] Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til +Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.^[51] Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas Edison. Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et @@ -2221,13 +2238,13 @@ become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment, discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who -defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.^[52] +defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.^[52]

The Napsters of those days, the “independents,” were companies like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted. “Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and -sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.”^[53] That led the independents to flee the East +sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.”^[53] That led the independents to flee the East Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that. @@ -2243,7 +2260,7 @@ kreative rettigheter. Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer musikk. -

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 @@ -2252,7 +2269,7 @@ deres musikk. Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg Russels populære låt “Happy Mose”, 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. -

Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn “Happy Mose” 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 @@ -2268,39 +2285,39 @@ ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe. Og enda viktigere, det var ikke klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse innspillingene. På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe. -

Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte -det, +det,

Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller en opera. En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg -om [deres] rettigheter.^[54] +om [deres] rettigheter.^[54]

The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works were “sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of -American composers,”^[55] and the +American composers,”^[55] and the “music publishing industry” was thereby “at the complete -mercy of this one pirate.”^[56] As +mercy of this one pirate.”^[56] As John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, “When they -make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.”^[57] +make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.”^[57]

These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano argued that “it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their introduction.” Rather, the machines increased the sales -of sheet music.^[58] In any case, the +of sheet music.^[58] In any case, the innovators argued, the job of Congress was “to consider first the interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are.” “All talk about `theft,'” the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, “is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as -defined by statute.”^[59] - +defined by statute.”^[59] +

The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer @@ -2326,7 +2343,7 @@ novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's -work except with permission of Grisham. +work except with permission of Grisham.

But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry @@ -2338,7 +2355,7 @@ gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle -follow-on creativity.^[60] +follow-on creativity.^[60]

While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently, historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for @@ -2355,7 +2372,7 @@ recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music, with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater -choice.^[61] +choice.^[61]

By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit. @@ -2363,7 +2380,7 @@ work, the record producers, and the public, benefit. Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.

When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a -“public performance” of the composer's work.^[62] As I described above, the law gives the composer +“public performance” of the composer's work.^[62] 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.

@@ -2376,7 +2393,7 @@ local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his -work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work. +work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.

@@ -2399,7 +2416,7 @@ effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er. Den offentlige fremf innspilling er ikke en “beskyttet” rettighet. Radiostasjonen får dermed røve verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å betale henne noen ting. -

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 @@ -2418,30 +2435,30 @@ selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever did— Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to give away. -

Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of “unfair -and potentially destructive competition.”^[63] There may have been a “public interest” in spreading +and potentially destructive competition.”^[63] There may have been a “public interest” in spreading the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, “Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's -property?”^[64] As another +property?”^[64] As another broadcaster put it,

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.^[65] +for.^[65]

Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:

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.^[66] -

+ville passe.^[66] +

Disse var “gratispassasjerer”, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen Actor's Guild, som “tok lønna fra -skuespillerne”^[67] +skuespillerne”^[67]

Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister Edwin Zimmerman sa det, @@ -2451,7 +2468,7 @@ protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to extend that monopoly. … The question here is how much compensation they should have and how far back they should carry their right to -compensation.^[68] +compensation.^[68]

Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting. @@ -2469,18 +2486,18 @@ by broadcasters' content.

These separate stories sing a common theme. If “piracy” means using value from someone else's creative property without permission from -that creator—as it is increasingly described today^[69] — then every industry +that creator—as it is increasingly described today^[69] — then every 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. -

^[51] +

^[51] Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons -“eventyr” med opphavsrett og patent. -

^[52] +“eventyr” med opphavsrett og patent. +

^[52] J. A. Aberdeen, Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent @@ -2493,48 +2510,48 @@ imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, R to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright” (September 2002), University of Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper -No. 159.

^[53] +No. 159.

^[53] Marc Wanamaker, “The First Studios,” The Silents Majority, arkivert på link #12. -

^[54] +

^[54] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota, chairman), reprinted in Legislative History of the Copyright Act, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South -Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). -

^[55] +Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). +

^[55] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association). -

^[56] +

^[56] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association). -

^[57] +

^[57] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra John Philip Sousa, komponist). -

^[58] +

^[58] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating Company of New York). -

^[59] +

^[59] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American Graphophone Company Association). -

^[60] +

^[60] @@ -2544,12 +2561,12 @@ H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess., Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). -

^[61] +

^[61] 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.

^[62] +1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.

^[62] See 17 United States Code, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning, record companies printed “Not Licensed for Radio @@ -2561,38 +2578,38 @@ Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, “From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,” University of Chicago Law Review -70 (2003): 281. -

^[63] +70 (2003): 281. +

^[63] 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). -

^[64] +H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). +

^[64] Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello, general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters). -

^[65] +

^[65] Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes, general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.). -

^[66] +

^[66] 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.). -

^[67] +

^[67] Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston, -president i Screen Actors Guild). -

^[68] +president i Screen Actors Guild). +

^[68] Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman, -fungerende assisterende justisministeren). -

^[69] +fungerende assisterende justisministeren). +

^[69] See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The @@ -2621,7 +2638,7 @@ 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^[70] (that +every year to physical piracy^[70] (that works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.

@@ -2656,7 +2673,7 @@ nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood. 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.^[71] In my view, +intellectual property law.^[71] 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. @@ -2665,7 +2682,7 @@ 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.^[72] +otherwise would have had.^[72]

This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they @@ -2704,8 +2721,8 @@ than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system, then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft. Without -piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. - +piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. +

This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students, @@ -2723,8 +2740,8 @@ give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right to say who gets access to what—at least ordinarily. And if the law properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of -access, then violating the law is still wrong. - +access, then violating the law is still wrong. +

@@ -2760,20 +2777,20 @@ us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.

5.2. Piratvirksomhet II

The key to the “piracy” that the law aims to quash is a use -that “rob[s] the author of [his] profit.”^[73] This means we must determine whether and how much +that “rob[s] the author of [his] profit.”^[73] This means we must determine whether and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.

Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations. Like every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the -Internet as well^[74]), Shawn Fanning and +Internet as well^[74]), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply put together components that had been developed -independently. +independently.

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.^[75] Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other +there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.^[75] Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each @@ -2784,10 +2801,10 @@ or your 20,000 best friends. 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.^[76] A survey by +Americans older than 12.^[76] A survey by the NPD group quoted in The New York Times estimated that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in -May 2003.^[77] The vast majority of these +May 2003.^[77] The vast majority of these are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is being “taken” on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that @@ -2812,7 +2829,7 @@ these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead -of purchasing. +of purchasing.

@@ -2850,7 +2867,7 @@ Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?

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.^[78] Type B sharing is illegal but plainly +economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.^[78] Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good) and harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard @@ -2869,7 +2886,7 @@ to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's 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, “Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels -fought it.”^[79] The labels claimed +fought it.”^[79] 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 @@ -2880,7 +2897,7 @@ regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. “In the end,” Cap Gemini concludes, “the `crisis' … was not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop after MTV came into being]—but had to a large extent resulted from -stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.”^[80] +stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.”^[80]

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 @@ -2905,17 +2922,17 @@ sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest it might be close.

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.^[81] This confirms a trend over the past few years. The +million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.^[81] This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could account for at least some of the loss. “From 1999 to 2001, the average -price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.”^[82] Competition from other forms of media could also +price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.”^[82] Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of BusinessWeek notes, “The soundtrack to the film High Fidelity has a list price of $18.98. You could -get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.”^[83] +get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.”^[83]

@@ -2948,7 +2965,7 @@ industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs? One benefit is type C sharing—making available content that is technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available. This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that -are no longer commercially available.^[84] +are no longer commercially available.^[84] 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 @@ -2957,14 +2974,14 @@ publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense

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.^[85] These stores buy content from owners, then sell the +of used book and used record stores in America today.^[85] These stores buy content from owners, then sell the content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell this content, even if the content is still under copyright, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell. -

+
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content available isn't making money from making the content available. It is also @@ -3021,8 +3038,8 @@ minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be found only with time.
-“But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the -target just what you call type A sharing?” +“Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke +angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?”
You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that @@ -3031,7 +3048,7 @@ itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements “down to -zero.”^[86] +zero.”^[86]
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure @@ -3083,7 +3100,7 @@ broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure compensation without giving the past (broadcasters) control over the future (cable). -
+
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had @@ -3113,20 +3130,20 @@ MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti called VCRs “tapeworms.” He warned, “When there are 20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious -asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.”^[87] “One does not have to be trained in +asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.”^[87] “One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,” he told Congress, “to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of -basic economics and plain common sense.”^[88] Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had -movie libraries of ten videos or more^[89] +basic economics and plain common sense.”^[88] Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had +movie libraries of ten videos or more^[89] — a use the Court would later hold was not “fair.” By “allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate copyrightowners,” Valenti testified, Congress would “take from the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit -from its reproduction.”^[90] +from its reproduction.”^[90]
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 @@ -3137,7 +3154,7 @@ machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar technology—which Jack Valenti had called “the Boston Strangler of the American film industry” (worse yet, it was a Japanese Boston Strangler of the American film -industry)—was an illegal technology.^[91] +industry)—was an illegal technology.^[91]
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in @@ -3149,16 +3166,16 @@ Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new -technology.^[92] +technology.^[92]

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 “taking” notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear: -

Tilfelle WHOSE VALUE WAS “PIRATED” Responsen til domstolene Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger Komponister Ingen beskyttelse Statutory license
Radio Innspillingsartister N/A Ingenting
Kabel-TV Kringkastere Ingen beskyttelse Statutory license
VCR Filmskapere Ingen beskyttelse Ingenting

Tilfelle	WHOSE VALUE WAS “PIRATED”	Responsen til domstolene	Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger	Komponister	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
Radio	Innspillingsartister	N/A	Ingenting
Kabel-TV	Kringkastere	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
VCR	Filmskapere	Ingen beskyttelse	Ingenting

Tilfelle Hvems verdi ble “røvet” Responsen til domstolene Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger Komponister Ingen beskyttelse Statutory license
Radio Innspillingsartister N/A Ingenting
Kabel-TV Kringkastere Ingen beskyttelse Statutory license
VCR Filmskapere Ingen beskyttelse Ingenting

Tilfelle	Hvems verdi ble “røvet”	Responsen til domstolene	Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger	Komponister	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
Radio	Innspillingsartister	N/A	Ingenting
Kabel-TV	Kringkastere	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
VCR	Filmskapere	Ingen beskyttelse	Ingenting

In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way -content was distributed.^[93] In each case, +content was distributed.^[93] In each case, throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a “free ride” on someone else's work.

@@ -3186,7 +3203,7 @@ every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song? We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright “has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all -possible uses of his work.”^[94] +possible uses of his work.”^[94] Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically @@ -3213,7 +3230,7 @@ efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these “potential public benefits,” as John Schwartz writes in The New York Times, “could be delayed in the -P2P fight.”^[95] Yet when anyone +P2P fight.”^[95] Yet when anyone begins to talk about “balance,” the copyright warriors raise a different argument. “All this hand waving about balance and incentives,” they say, “misses a fundamental point. Our @@ -3224,10 +3241,10 @@ police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?”

-“It is our property,” the warriors -insist. “And it should be protected just as any other property is -protected.” -

^[70] +“Det er vår eiendom,” insisterer +krigerne. “og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen +eiendom er beskyttet.” +

^[70] See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), @@ -3235,7 +3252,7 @@ See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), July 2003, available at link #14. See also Ben Hunt, “Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,” Financial Times, 14 February 2003, 11. -
^[71] +
^[71] See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New @@ -3250,8 +3267,8 @@ permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS -framework. -
^[72] +framework. +
^[72] For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy (New York: @@ -3259,13 +3276,13 @@ Amacom, 2002), 144–90. “In s piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if -pirating were not an option.” Ibid., 149. -
^[73] +pirating were not an option.” Ibid., 149. +
^[73] Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777). -
^[74] +
^[74] See Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do @@ -3275,8 +3292,8 @@ frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, Future, -89–92, 139. -
^[75] +89–92, 139. +
^[75] See Carolyn Lochhead, “Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood @@ -3288,7 +3305,7 @@ Chronicle, 23 May 2003, C1; “ Call,” Economist, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton, “Hollywood at War with the Internet” (London) Times, 26 July 2002, 18. -
^[76] +

^[76] @@ -3297,16 +3314,16 @@ Distribution (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. -

^[77] +

^[77] Amy Harmon, “Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,” New York Times, 6 June 2003, A1. -

^[78] +

^[78] Se Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy, -148–49. -

^[79] +148–49. +

^[79] See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the @@ -3320,11 +3337,11 @@ percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing -Office, October 1989), 145–56.

^[80] +Office, October 1989), 145–56.

^[80] U.S. Congress, Copyright and Home Copying, 4. -

^[81] +

^[81] See Recording Industry Association of America, 2002 Yearend @@ -3339,14 +3356,14 @@ down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based on U.S. dollar value of shipments).” -

^[82] -Jane Black, “Big Music's Broken Record,” BusinessWeek online, -13 February 2003, available at link #17. -

^[83] +

^[82] +Jane Black, “Big Music's Broken Record”, BusinessWeek online, +13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #17. +

^[83] ibid. -

^[84] +

^[84] By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no @@ -3354,7 +3371,7 @@ longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law—Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of the Future of Music Coalition), available at link #18. -

^[85] +

^[85] While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in @@ -3365,7 +3382,7 @@ available at . Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording Merchandisers, “2002 Annual Survey Results,” available at link #20. -

^[86] +

^[86] See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35 @@ -3374,38 +3391,38 @@ See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster (New York: Crown Business, 2003), 269–82. -

^[87] +

^[87] 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.). -

^[88] +

^[88] Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475. -

^[89] +

^[89] Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979). -

^[90] +

^[90] Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack Valenti). -

^[91] +

^[91] Universal City Studios, Inc. mot Sony Corp. of America, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981). -

^[92] +

^[92] Sony Corp. of America mot Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984). -

^[93] +

^[93] These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was @@ -3417,13 +3434,13 @@ technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See Lessig, Future, 71. See also Picker, “From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,” University of Chicago Law -Review 70 (2003): 293–96. -

^[94] +Review 70 (2003): 293–96. +

^[94] Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, (1984). -

^[95] +

^[95] John Schwartz, “New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software @@ -3439,15 +3456,15 @@ opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.

-But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a “property” -right is a bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of -property. Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression -is very odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you -put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I -take it, you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good -idea you had to put a picnic 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? +Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en +“eiendoms”-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten +er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide +eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig. Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg +tar en picnic-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting, +picnic-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg +når jeg tar den gode ideen som du hadde om å plassere +picnic-bordet 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?

The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas, though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the @@ -3458,7 +3475,7 @@ weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I copy the way someone else dresses), “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his -taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”^[96] +taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”^[96]

Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil @@ -3468,7 +3485,7 @@ min tilatelse: Loven gj But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details, in other words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the intangible into property emerged, we need to place this -“property” in its proper context.^[97] +“property” in its proper context.^[97]

My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of “copyright material @@ -3478,13 +3495,13 @@ significance of this true statement—“”— 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. -

^[96] +

^[96] Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6 (Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34. -
^[97] +
^[97] As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are @@ -3494,145 +3511,143 @@ to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff, “What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,” Arizona Law Review 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241. -
Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
-William Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet in -1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play -that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613, -and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture -ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped -into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source. I once -overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V: -“I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés.” -
- -In 1774, almost 180 years after Romeo and Juliet was -written, the “copy-right” for the work was still thought by -many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob -Tonson.^[98] Tonson was the most prominent -of a small group of publishers called the Conger^[99] who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth -century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the -“copy” of books that they had acquired from authors. That -perpetual right meant that no 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. -
-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 adopted the first -“copyright” act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the 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.^[100] Under this law, Romeo and -Juliet should have been free in 1731. So why was there any issue -about it still being under Tonson's control in 1774? -
-The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a -“copyright” was—indeed, no one had. At the time the -English passed the Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing -copyrights. The last law regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662, -had expired in 1695. That law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as -a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was published. But -after it expired, there was no positive law that said that the publishers, -or “Stationers,” had an exclusive right to print books. - -
-There was no positive 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 rules that are to govern -how people are to behave. We call the words from legislatures -“positive law.” We call the words from judges “common -law.” The common law sets the background against which legislatures -legislate; the legislature, ordinarily, can trump that 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. -
- -This question was important to the publishers, or -“booksellers,” as they were called, because there was growing -competition from foreign publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were -increasingly publishing and exporting books to England. That competition -reduced the profits of the Conger, which reacted by demanding that -Parliament pass a law to again give them exclusive control over -publishing. That demand ultimately resulted in the Statute of Anne. -
-The Statute of Anne granted the author or “proprietor” of a -book an exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation, -however, and to the horror of the booksellers, the law gave the bookseller -that right for a limited term. At the end of that term, the copyright -“expired,” and the work would then be free and could be -published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have believed. +

Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne

+William Shakespeare skrev Romeo og Julie i +1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store +skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt +til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk +kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i +vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen +som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: “Jeg likte det, men +Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.” +
+ +I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at Romeo og Julie ble +skrevet, mente mange at “opphavsretten” kun tilhørte én eneste +utgiver i London, John Tonson. ^[98] Tonson +var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt “the +Conger”^[99], som kontrollerte +boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde +en evigvarende rett over “kopier” av bøker de hadde fått av +forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere +kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle +konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet. +
+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 +“Statute of Anne” og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være +beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom +forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha +en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.^[100] På +grunn av denne loven, så skulle Rome og Julie ha falt +i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i +1774? +
+Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva +opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da +engelskmennene vedtok “Statute of Anne”, var det ingen annen +lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var +lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol +over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva +ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa +at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. +
+At det ikke fantes noen positiv lov, betydde ikke at +det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både +til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover +(prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal +leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra +dommerne sedvanerett.“Common law” angir bakgrunnen for de +lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at +bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var +det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov +beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv. +
+ +Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller “bokselgere”, +som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere, +Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England +hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til “The +Conger”, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov +for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i +“Statute of Anne”. +
+“Statute of Anne” ga forfatteren eller “eieren” av +en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til +bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne +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.
Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden, men hvorfor ville de begrense retten i det hele tatt?
-For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very -strong claim. Take Romeo and Juliet as an example: -That play was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into -the world. He didn't take anybody's property when he created this play -(that's a controversial claim, but never mind), and by his creating this -play, he didn't make it any harder for others to craft a play. So 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 “steal” Shakespeare's work? -
-The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special about -the notion of “copyright” that existed at the time of the -Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about -“booksellers.” -
- -First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come to -apply the concept of “copyright” ever more broadly. But in -1710, it wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The -copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade others -from reprinting a book. In 1710, the “copy-right” was a right -to use a particular machine to replicate a particular work. It did not go -beyond that very narrow right. It did not control any more generally how a -work could be used. Today the right includes a 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. -
-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 permission of -the Shakespeare estate. It would not have controlled anything, for example, -about how the work could be performed, whether the work could be translated, -or whether Kenneth Branagh would be allowed to make his films. The -“copy-right” was only an exclusive right to print—no -less, of course, but also no more. -
-Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British. They had -had a long and ugly experience with “exclusive rights,” -especially “exclusive rights” granted by the Crown. The English -had fought a civil war in part about the Crown's practice of handing out -monopolies—especially monopolies for works that already existed. King -Henry VIII granted a patent to print the Bible and a monopoly to Darcy to -print playing cards. The English Parliament began to fight back against this -power of the Crown. In 1656, it passed the Statute of Monopolies, limiting -monopolies to patents for new inventions. And by 1710, Parliament was eager -to deal with the growing monopoly in publishing. -
-Thus the “copy-right,” when viewed as a monopoly right, was -naturally viewed as a right that should be limited. (However convincing the -claim that “it's my property, and I should have it forever,” -try sounding convincing when uttering, “It's my monopoly, and I should -have it forever.”) 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. -
-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 as -harmless in seventeenth-century England. Members of the Conger were -increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst kind—tools of the -Crown's repression, selling the liberty of England to guarantee themselves a -monopoly profit. The attacks against these monopolists were harsh: Milton -described them as “old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of -book-selling”; they were “men who do not therefore labour in an -honest profession to which learning is indetted.”^[101] +Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt +krav. Ta romeo og Julie som et eksempel: Skuespillet +ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til +verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en +kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte +han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage +skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta +Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner +finnes for å tillate at noen “stjeler” Shakespeares verk? +
+Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av +opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da “Statute of Anne” ble +vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne. +
+ +Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke +begrepet “copyright” i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var +det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble +født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å +reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var “kopi-rett” en rett til å bruke +en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover +dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et +verk kunne brukes. Idag inkluderer 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. +
+Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende, +betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne +trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den +ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne +fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt +lov til å lage filmer. “Kopi-retten” var bare en eksklusiv rett +til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer. +
+Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt +en lang og stygg erfaring med “eksklusive rettigheter”, +spesielt “enerett” gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde +utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut +monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik +VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage +spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne +makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble “Statute of Monopolis” vedtatt +for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var +parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering. +
+Dermed ble “kopi-retten”, når den sees på som en monopolrett, +en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden +om at “det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,” prøv +hvor overbevisende det er når men sier “det er mitt monopol, og jeg +skal ha det for alltid.”) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare +så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne +skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem. +
+Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et +monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres +greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets +England. Medlemmene i “the Conger” ble av en voksende mengde +sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens +undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en +monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem +som “gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten”; +de var “menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er +nødvendig.”^[101]
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap, var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste @@ -3651,10 +3666,10 @@ mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først -ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve -en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i 1735 og 1737 de -prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok, -sa de; de trengte mer tid. +ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt “Statute of Anne”, og +fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i +1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen +år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå idag, @@ -3664,70 +3679,68 @@ utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, s 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.^[102] +bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.^[102]

-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 protections were -not intended as replacements for the common law. Instead, they were -intended simply to supplement the common law. Under common law, it was -already wrong to take another person's creative “property” and -use it without his permission. The Statute of Anne, the booksellers argued, -didn't change that. Therefore, just because the protections of the Statute -of Anne expired, that didn't mean the protections of the common law expired: -Under the common law 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. -

-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, “The publishers -… had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for -cattle.”^[103] The bookseller didn't -care squat for the rights of the author. His concern was the monopoly -profit that the author's work gave. +Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke +saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: “Statute of Anne” +ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne +beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de +ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen +persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. “Statute +of Anne”, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor +betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av “Statute of Anne” +utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde +de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om +“Statute of Anne” sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de, +var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne. +

+Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende +jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som +jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, “var utgiverne … like +bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.”^[103] Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om +forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten +forfatterens verk ga.

Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne -kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.^[104] -

-Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his career in -Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive reprints -“of standard works whose copyright term had expired,” at least -under the Statute of Anne.^[105] Donaldson's -publishing house prospered and became “something of a center for -literary Scotsmen.” “[A]mong them,” Professor Mark Rose -writes, was “the young James Boswell who, together with his friend -Andrew Erskine, published an anthology of contemporary Scottish poems with -Donaldson.”^[106] -

-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 “of the most popular English books, in defiance of the -supposed common law right of Literary Property.”^[107] 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. -

-The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block “piracy” -like Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the -“pirates,” the most important early victory being -Millar v. Taylor. -

-Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James -Thomson's poem “The Seasons.” 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.^[108] +kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.^[104] +

+Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons “the Conger”. Han startet +in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av +standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge “Statute of +Anne”.^[105] Donaldsons forlag vokste +og ble “et sentrum for litterære skotter.” “Blant +dem,” skriver professor Mark Rose, var “den unge James Boswell +som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av +skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.”^[106] +

+Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så +flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av “de +mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær +eiendom.” ^[107] Bøkene hans var +mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn “the Conger”s, og han baserte +sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være “Statute of +Anne”, var falt i det fri. +

+Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot “pirater” som +Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren +i kampen mellom Millar og +Taylor. +

+Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James +Thomsons dikt “The Seasons”. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse +gjennom “Statute of Anne”, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var +uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til +sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva +“Statute of Anne” sa.^[108]

-Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English -history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection -the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held, extinguish any -common law right. The question was whether the common law would protect the -author against subsequent “pirates.” Mansfield's answer was -yes: The common law would bar Taylor from 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. +Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av +de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med +bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse “Statute of Anne” gav +bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra +sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne +mot “pirater”. 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.
Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som @@ -3739,13 +3752,13 @@ gjennom perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur. -
-Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke -der, for nå kommer Donaldson. -
+
+Kampen for å forsvare “Statute of Anne”s begrensninger sluttet +uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson. +
Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas -Beckett.^[109] Da ga Donaldson ut en +Beckett.^[109] Da ga Donaldson ut en uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i Millar-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en @@ -3755,17 +3768,17 @@ Parlamentets mening med ut Rettssaken Donaldson mot Beckett fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del -rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of -Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste -lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd -med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort -beskyttelsesperioden var over. +rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av “Statute of +Anne”. Etter at “Statute of Anne” var blitt vedtatt, +skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, +mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i “Statute of Anne”, falle i det +fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
-The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were presented to -the House and voted upon first by the “law lords,” 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. +Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for +huset, og ble først stemt over av “juslorder”, medlemmer av +enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår +Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at “juslordene” hadde stemt, +stemte resten av Overhuset.
Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut @@ -3775,25 +3788,23 @@ hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet p hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
-“The public domain.” Before the case of -Donaldson v. Beckett, there -was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there was a -strong argument that common law copyrights were perpetual. After 1774, the -public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the -legal control 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. - -
-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 “pirate publishers” did their work, people celebrated -the decision in the streets. As the Edinburgh -Advertiser reported, “No private cause has so much -engrossed the attention of the public, and none has been tried before the -House of Lords in the decision of which so many individuals were -interested.” “Great rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over -literary property: bonfires and illuminations.”^[110] +“Å falle i det fri”. Før rettssaken +Donaldson mot Beckett var det +ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo +en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble +Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den +lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk +historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var +frie. +
+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 +piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som +Edinburgh Advertiser skrev “Ingen privatsak har +noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt +prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.” +“Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og +*illuminations*.”^[110]
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i motsatt retning. Morning Chronicle skrev: @@ -3803,61 +3814,60 @@ er blitt 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.^[111] +familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.^[111]

-“Ruined” 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 meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in -England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter -free. Not in the sense that copyrights would not be -respected, for of course, for a limited time after a work was published, the -bookseller had an exclusive right to control the publication of that -book. And not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a -copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But -free in the sense that the culture and its growth would -no longer be controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market -does, this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and -producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English readers -chose to let it develop— chose in the books they bought and wrote; -chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a -competitive context, 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. +“Ruinert” er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å +si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne +ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og +utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette +fri. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert, +for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller +ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var +falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men fri i +betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en +liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og +utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå +formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom +valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og +beundret. Valg i en konkurrerende sammenheng, ikke 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 tros av flertallets +ønsker.

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. -

^[98] +

^[98] -Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent -eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his -handsome “definitive editions” of classic works. In addition to -Romeo and Juliet, he published an astonishing array -of works that still remain at the heart of the English canon, including -collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John -Dryden. See Keith Walker, “Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,” -American Scholar 61:3 (1992): 424–31. -
^[99] +Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære +storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke“ferdige +versjoner” av klassiske verk. I tillegg til Romeo og +Julie, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er +hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben +Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: “Jacob Tonson, +Bookseller”, American Scholar 61:3 (1992): +424-31. +
^[99] Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52. -
^[100] +
^[100] -As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a -“copyright law.” See Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and -Copywrongs, 40. -
^[101] +Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette +en “opphavsrettslov”. Se Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights +and Copywrongs, 40. +
^[101] Philip Wittenberg, The Protection and Marketing of Literary Property (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31. -
^[102] +
^[102] A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the @@ -3867,45 +3877,45 @@ Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in 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, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618). -
^[103] +
^[103] -Lyman Ray Patterson, “Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,” -Vanderbilt Law Review 40 (1987): 28. For a -wonderfully compelling account, see Vaidhyanathan, 37–48. - -
^[104] +Lyman Ray Patterson, “Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use”, +Vanderbilt Law Review 40 (1987): 28. For en +fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48. + +
^[104] For a compelling account, see David Saunders, Authorship and Copyright (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69. -
^[105] +
^[105] Mark Rose, Authors and Owners (Cambridge: Harvard -University Press, 1993), 92. -
^[106] +University Press, 1993), 92. +
^[106] Ibid., 93. -
^[107] +
^[107] Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective, 167 (quoting Borwell). -
^[108] +
^[108] Howard B. Abrams, “The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law: -Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,” Wayne Law +Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright”, Wayne Law Review 29 (1983): 1152. -
^[109] +
^[109] Ibid., 1156. -
^[110] +
^[110] Rose, 97. -
^[111] +

^[111] ibid. @@ -3923,7 +3933,7 @@ I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var p *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på -scenen. +scenen.
Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I @@ -3932,54 +3942,54 @@ forestillingen p Simpsons. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
-Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else -attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of The -Simpsons. For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and -of course, to use copyrighted material you need the permission of the -copyright owner, unless “fair use” or some other privilege -applies. +Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste +finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene +med The Simpson. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt +beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha +tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er “rimelig bruk” eller +det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
Else kontaktet Simpson-skaper Matt Groenings kontor for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer -programmet. +programmet.
Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt -sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox. -
-Then, as Else told me, “two things happened. First we discovered -… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least -that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.” And -second, Fox “wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to -use this four-point-five seconds of … entirely unsolicited -Simpsons which was in the corner of the shot.” -
-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, “There must be some mistake here. … We're asking for -your educational rate on this.” That was the educational rate, -Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to confirm what he -had been told. -
- -“I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,” he told -me. “Yes, you have your facts straight,” she said. It would -cost $10,000 to use the clip of The Simpsons in the -corner of a shot in a documentary film about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, -astonishingly, Herrera told Else, “And if you quote me, I'll turn you -over to our attorneys.” As an assistant to Herrera told Else later -on, “They don't give a shit. They just want the money.” +sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox. +
+Deretter, fortalte Else: “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.” Som det andre krevde +Fox “ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt +sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig Simpson +som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.” +
+Ellers 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 +“det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på +dette.” Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid +etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet. +
+ +“Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran +meg”, sa han. “Ja, du har riktige opplysninger”, sa +hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av The +Simpson, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar +om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med +å si “Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.” En +av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at “De bryr seg ikke i det +heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.”

Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer The Day After -Trinity fra ti år tidligere. +Trinity fra ti år tidligere.

Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier rettighetene til The Simpsons. Rettighetene er deres @@ -3990,40 +4000,40 @@ beskyttelse, s det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).

-For example, “public performance” is a use of The -Simpsons that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a -selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets -to come see “My Favorite Simpsons,” then -you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner -(rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she wants—$10 or -$1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law. +For eksempel “offentlig fremvisning”* av The +Simpson er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren +kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og +selger billetter til “Mine +Simpson-favoritter”, så må du ha tillatelse +fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser +det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge +loven.

-But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought -is “fair use.”^[112] Else's use -of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a Simpsons -episode is clearly a fair use of The -Simpsons—and fair use does not require the permission of -anyone. +Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres +første tanke “rimelig bruk”.^[112] Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en +Simpsons-episode er et klart eksempel på +“rimelig bruk” av The Simpsons— og +“rimelig bruk” krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.

-So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon “fair use.” Here's -his reply: +Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på “fair +use”. Og her er hans svar:

-The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the -gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what -is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make -and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was -“clearly fair use” in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't -rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why: +Simpsons-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det +var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er +knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste +dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var “rimelig +bruk”, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og +dette er grunnen:
-Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy Errors -and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed “visual cue -sheet” listing the source and licensing status of each shot in the -film. They take a dim view of “fair use,” and a claim of -“fair use” can grind the application process to a halt. +Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en +“Errors and Omissions”-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert +“visual cue sheet” med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle +scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på “fair use”, og å påstå +at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste @@ -4039,44 +4049,45 @@ for -I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law School -… who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed that Fox -would “depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life,” -regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it would boil down -to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper pockets, me or them. +Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School … +som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville +“depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life”, +uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke +ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
-Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet, -når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger. +Spørsmålet om “fair use” dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten +av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.

-I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter -derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis -fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt -de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere -ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har +I teorien betyr “fair use” at du ikke trenger +tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot +tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer “fair use” helt +annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige +konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på +“fair use”. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har ikke fulgt opp.

Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke. -

^[112] +

^[112] -For an excellent argument that such use is “fair use,” but that -lawyers don't permit recognition that it is “fair use,” see -Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, “Fair Use and Statutory -Reform in the Wake of Eldred” (draft on file -with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003. -

Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere

+Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er “fair +use”, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard +A. Posner og William F. Patry, “Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the +Wake of Eldred ” (utkast arkivert hos +forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003. +

Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere

In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in anticipation of the power of networks. -

Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he @@ -4084,7 +4095,7 @@ launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films and interviews with figures important to his career. -

At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to @@ -4097,21 +4108,21 @@ wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters, scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get permission for that content. -

Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. “Our goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films,” Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. “No one had ever really done this before,” Alben explained. “No one had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's career.” -

Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked, “Well, what will it take?” -

Alben replied, “Well, we're going to have to clear rights from everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that we want to use in these film clips.” Slade said, “Great! Go for -it.”^[113] +it.”^[113]

The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim @@ -4140,7 +4151,7 @@ hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy crashing through the glass—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we just started calling people. -

Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, “Hey, can I pay @@ -4152,7 +4163,7 @@ this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.

It was one year later—“and even then we weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.” -

Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for the purpose of releasing a retrospective. @@ -4170,12 +4181,12 @@ systematically and cleared the rights. And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it, and it sold very well. -

But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at -all.”^[114] Did it make sense, I asked +all.”^[114] Did it make sense, I asked Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?

For, as he acknowledged, “very few … have the time and @@ -4214,7 +4225,7 @@ I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for money,” then it becomes difficult to put one of these things together. -

Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long @@ -4242,14 +4253,14 @@ Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien 60 Minutes. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den. -

-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 room of over 250 -well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a -question: “Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in -this room?” -

+Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer, +kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en +forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over +250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin +tale med et spørsmål: “Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp +brutt i dette rommet?” +

For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course, @@ -4276,7 +4287,7 @@ around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of politicians and blends them with music to create biting political commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash! -and music. +and music.

All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted to be “legal,” the cost of complying with the law is impossibly @@ -4340,13 +4351,13 @@ use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer to track down permissions 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. -

^[113] +

^[113] Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation of his image. But these rights, too, burden “Rip, Mix, Burn” -creativity, as this chapter evinces. -

^[114] +creativity, as this chapter evinces. +

^[114] U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, @@ -4389,7 +4400,7 @@ 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.^[115] +forget.^[115]

We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your @@ -4441,7 +4452,7 @@ very low fee. “But other than that unavailable,” Kahle told me. “If you were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate student?” As Kahle put it, -

+
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a @@ -4471,7 +4482,7 @@ deposits—for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and “borrowed back.” Thus, when the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The copy exists—if it exists at all—in the library archive of the -film company.^[116] +film company.^[116]
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts, @@ -4506,7 +4517,7 @@ copies to enable other films to be made. Either way, the archive enabled access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the “Duck and Cover” film that instructed children how to save themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can -download the film in a few minutes—for free. +download the film in a few minutes—for free.
Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what @@ -4537,7 +4548,7 @@ about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform even if that information is no longer sold.
The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very -quickly (the average today is after about a year^[117]). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores +quickly (the average today is after about a year^[117]). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to @@ -4605,7 +4616,7 @@ these “archives,”“property.” And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would exercise. -

^[115] +

^[115] The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House @@ -4613,7 +4624,7 @@ changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release stated, “Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” That was later changed, without notice, to “Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003. -
^[116] +
^[116] Doug Herrick, “Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at @@ -4621,7 +4632,7 @@ the Library of Congress,” Film Library Quarterly 13 nos. 2–3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United States ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1992), 36. -
^[117] +
^[117] Dave Barns, “Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, @@ -4638,7 +4649,7 @@ administration—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in -Washington. +Washington.
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 @@ -4648,8 +4659,8 @@ distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States: Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth -Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. - +Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. +
@@ -4680,7 +4691,7 @@ animates this entire debate: Creative property owners accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property owners in the nation. 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.^[118] +debates to follow must rest.^[118]
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's @@ -4704,7 +4715,7 @@ tradition, at least in Washington.
While “creative property” is certainly “property” in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to -understand,^[119] it has never been the case, +understand,^[119] it has never been the case, nor should it be, that “creative property owners” have been “accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property owners.” Indeed, if creative property owners were given the @@ -4819,7 +4830,7 @@ fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed -by the state. +by the state.
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 @@ -4882,7 +4893,7 @@ norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night. 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.^[120] The law, in +in affecting the three.^[120] The law, in other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a particular modality. Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law @@ -4892,12 +4903,12 @@ reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be more strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast driving. -
Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.

+
Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.

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.^[121] +modality might be displaced by another.^[121]
10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
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 @@ -4963,14 +4974,14 @@ 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 “architecture of revenue.” -
+
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.^[122] Does anyone believe the +cameras.^[122] Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks from roads for the purpose of protecting the @@ -4989,13 +5000,13 @@ others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect 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, “established companies have an interest in excluding future -competitors.”^[123] And relative to a +competitors.”^[123] And relative to a startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. - +
Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government @@ -5031,16 +5042,16 @@ In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to -increase farm production. +increase farm production.
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. -
+
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to -reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. +reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced @@ -5053,7 +5064,7 @@ solve. It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an “environmentalism” for -culture.^[124] His point, and the point I +culture.^[124] His point, and the point I want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or that music should be given away “for free.” The point is that @@ -5077,7 +5088,7 @@ for creativity.
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. -
10.2. Opphav
+
10.2. Opphav
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of “creative property” rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English @@ -5141,7 +5152,7 @@ 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.^[125] This meant that there was no guaranteed public +rights that already protected creative authorship.^[125] 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 @@ -5166,7 +5177,7 @@ republikken, s opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter -14 år.^[126] +14 år.^[126]
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet @@ -5178,11 +5189,11 @@ ikke verdt det for samfunnet Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their -work to pass into the public domain.^[127] +work to pass into the public domain.^[127]
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.^[128] When that +print after one year.^[128] When that happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the books are no longer effectively controlled by copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to @@ -5242,7 +5253,7 @@ 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.^[129] +the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.^[129]
10.4. Loven: Virkeområde
The “scope” of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those @@ -5312,7 +5323,7 @@ copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you 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.^[130] The Copyright Act was +United States.^[130] 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.
@@ -5363,14 +5374,14 @@ computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's work. But whatever that 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.^[131] +protect derivative rights at all.^[131] 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.^[132] These two different uses of my +book.^[132] These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be @@ -5387,7 +5398,7 @@ originally granted. 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.^[133] +and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.^[133]
@@ -5405,7 +5416,7 @@ be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not 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,^[134] +copyright automatically applies,^[134] because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright law. @@ -5433,8 +5444,9 @@ the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first diagram on next page).
-Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that -remain unregulated because the law considers these “fair uses.” +Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som +forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som “rimelig +bruk”.
Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.

These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as @@ -5445,7 +5457,7 @@ would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right over such “fair uses” for public policy (and possibly First Amendment) reasons. -
Figur 10.10. Unregulated copying considered “fair uses.”

Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively +
Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som “rimelig bruk”.

Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated.

@@ -5455,7 +5467,7 @@ are nonetheless deemed “fair
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use of a -copyrighted work produces a copy.^[135] And +copyrighted work produces a copy.^[135] And because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is @@ -5570,7 +5582,7 @@ court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were 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. -
+
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 really control how @@ -5615,20 +5627,19 @@ 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. -
+
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 Casablanca. 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.^[136] +juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.^[136]
-This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers -that the Marx Brothers “were brothers long before you -were.”^[137] The Marx Brothers -therefore owned the word brothers, and if Warner -Brothers insisted on trying to control Casablanca, -then the Marx Brothers would insist on control over -brothers. +Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte +Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene “var brødre lenge før dere var +det”.^[137] Marx-brødrene eide derfor +ordet Brothers, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på +å forsøke å kontrollere Casablanca, så ville +Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over Brothers.
Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville @@ -5642,7 +5653,7 @@ owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny. -
+
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok @@ -5675,14 +5686,14 @@ button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer.
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen): -Aristoteles Politikk -
Figur 10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s “Politics”

+Aristoteles Politikk +
Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles “Politikk”

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. -
Figur 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle;s “Politics”.

+
Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".

Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original e-book version of my last book, The Future of Ideas: -
Figur 10.16. List of the permissions for “The Future of Ideas”.

+
Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for “The Future of Ideas”.

Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne boken!
@@ -5691,7 +5702,7 @@ Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls control how you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright owner certainly does have the power—up to the limits of the copyright law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright -power.^[138] When my e-book of +power.^[138] When my e-book of Middlemarch says I have the permission to copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the @@ -5716,7 +5727,7 @@ simply won't read aloud. These are controls, not permissions. Imagine a world where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried to type “Warner Brothers,” erased “Brothers” from -the sentence. +the sentence.
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as copyright code. The @@ -5740,8 +5751,8 @@ relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the Adobe site was a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report: - -
Figur 10.17. List of the permissions for “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland”.

+ +
Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for “Alice i Eventyrland”.

Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy, not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the “permissions” indicated, not allowed to “read @@ -5770,7 +5781,7 @@ 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. -
+
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story of mine that makes the same point.
@@ -5816,7 +5827,7 @@ offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to 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. -
+
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 @@ -5839,7 +5850,7 @@ coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he knew very well.
-But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.^[139] He and a group of colleagues were working on a +But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.^[139] He and a group of colleagues were working on a paper to be submitted at conference. The paper was intended to describe the weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music. @@ -5884,7 +5895,7 @@ hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote: 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. -

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: @@ -5920,7 +5931,7 @@ the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation. -
+
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance @@ -5938,7 +5949,7 @@ system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer 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. -
+
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled @@ -5946,7 +5957,7 @@ consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka “Mr. Rogers,” for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' -Neighborhood. +Neighborhood.
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the “Neighborhood” at hours when some children cannot use it. I @@ -5961,7 +5972,7 @@ whole approach in broadcasting has always been “” 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.^[140] +important.^[140]
@@ -5970,7 +5981,7 @@ that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR responsible.
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA. - +
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
@@ -5992,8 +6003,8 @@ are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: No one ever died from copyright circumvention. 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. -
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. +
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the @@ -6027,7 +6038,7 @@ For example, imagine you were part of a Star Trek fan club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply -continue it.^[141] +continue it.^[141]
Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity. No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered @@ -6086,12 +6097,12 @@ Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur. Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership, “five companies control 85 percent of our media -sources.”^[142] The five recording +sources.”^[142] 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.^[143] The “five largest cable companies pipe +Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.^[143] The “five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers -nationwide.”^[144] - +nationwide.”^[144] +
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the @@ -6115,7 +6126,7 @@ market.
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, +article about Rupert Murdoch,
Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its integration. They supply content—Fox movies … Fox TV shows @@ -6125,7 +6136,7 @@ the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical distribution system through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that -system will serve the same function in the United States.^[145] +system will serve the same function in the United States.^[145]
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many @@ -6145,7 +6156,7 @@ begynt
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen er viktig. -
+
I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for All in the Family. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke. Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde @@ -6156,7 +6167,7 @@ ikke mer. I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre. CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra -nettverk-kontroll.^[146] +nettverk-kontroll.^[146]
@@ -6176,13 +6187,13 @@ new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.” “In 1992, 16 new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was -one.”^[147] In 2002, 75 percent of +one.”^[147] In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. “In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent -studios decreased 63%.”^[148] -
+studios decreased 63%.”^[148] +
Today, another Norman Lear with another All in the Family 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 @@ -6190,14 +6201,14 @@ increasingly owned by the network.
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, - +
Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now -you have less than a handful.^[149] +you have less than a handful.^[149]
This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. Increasingly @@ -6208,16 +6219,16 @@ feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of consequence—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a democracy. -
+
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the “Innovator's Dilemma”: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business. The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural -trends.^[150] Lumbering giants not only +trends.^[150] 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. +there will be far too little sprinting.
I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies @@ -6281,7 +6292,7 @@ This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a crucial debate the opportunity to present its case. And the courts will -defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.^[151] +defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.^[151]
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 @@ -6291,7 +6302,7 @@ positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about. -

10.8. Sammen

There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright warriors that the government should “protect my property.” In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No @@ -6354,7 +6365,7 @@ part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding—is now a massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the most significant regulation of culture that our free society has -known.^[152] +known.^[152]

This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.

@@ -6415,7 +6426,7 @@ The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course copyright is a kind of “property,” and of course, as with any property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property -rights^[153]) has been crafted to balance +rights^[153]) has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always been struck in light of new technologies. And for almost half of our @@ -6450,7 +6461,7 @@ be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a lawyer. -

^[118] +

^[118] Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794, @@ -6458,7 +6469,7 @@ H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on 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). -
^[119] +
^[119] Lawyers speak of “property” not as an absolute thing, but as a @@ -6469,7 +6480,7 @@ best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of ““lawyer talk,” see Bruce Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27. -
^[120] +
^[120] By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean @@ -6480,7 +6491,7 @@ more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, Code: And Ot Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95; Lawrence Lessig, “The New Chicago School,” Journal of Legal Studies, June 1998. -
^[121] +
^[121] Some people object to this way of talking about “liberty.” They object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at @@ -6508,8 +6519,8 @@ making access to those places easier; 42 United States Code, section 12101 (2000). Each of these interventions to change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand -the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. -
^[122] +the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. +
^[122] See Geoffrey Smith, “Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a @@ -6518,26 +6529,26 @@ analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, “Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?” Forbes.com, 6 October 2003, available at link #24. -
^[123] +
^[123] Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71. -
^[124] +
^[124] -See, for example, James Boyle, “A Politics of Intellectual Property: +Se for eksempel James Boyle, “A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?” Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87. -
^[125] +
^[125] William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), vol. 1, 485–86: “extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme Law of the Land,' the perpetual rights which authors had, or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law” -(emphasis added). -
^[126] +(emphasis added). +
^[126] Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to @@ -6553,7 +6564,7 @@ overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly, because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen -years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.
^[127] +years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.
^[127] Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of @@ -6564,17 +6575,17 @@ Copyright, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963), 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, “Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,” University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 471, -498–501, and accompanying figures.
^[128] +498–501, and accompanying figures.
^[128] -Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.
^[129] +Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.
^[129] These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner, “Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,” loc. cit. -
^[130] +
^[130] See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, “Poets, Pirates, and the @@ -6583,19 +6594,19 @@ Journal of International Law and Politics 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987). -
^[131] +
^[131] -Jonathan Zittrain, “The Copyright Cage,” Legal -Affairs, July/August 2003, available at link #26. -
^[132] +Jonathan Zittrain, “The Copyright Cage”, Legal +Affairs, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. +
^[132] Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the First Amendment) between mere “copies” and derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, “The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,” Yale Law Journal 112 -(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). -
^[133] +(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). +
^[133] This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly @@ -6607,14 +6618,14 @@ doesn't make a copy; 17 United States Code, section presumption under the existing law (which regulates “copies;” 17 United States Code, section 102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right. -
^[134] +
^[134] 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. -
^[135] +
^[135] I don't mean “nature” in the sense that it couldn't be @@ -6622,17 +6633,16 @@ 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. -
^[136] +
^[136] -See David Lange, “Recognizing the Public Domain,” -Law and Contemporary Problems 44 (1981): -172–73. -
^[137] +Se David Lange, “Recognizing the Public Domain”, Law +and Contemporary Problems 44 (1981): 172–73. +
^[137] Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and -Copywrongs, 1–3. -
^[138] +Copywrongs, 1–3. +
^[138] In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for @@ -6641,7 +6651,7 @@ it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book. -
^[139] +
^[139] See Pamela Samuelson, “Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,” Science 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan @@ -6654,41 +6664,41 @@ Concerns,” Billboard, May 2001; J “Is the RIAA Running Scared?” Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Frequently Asked Questions about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA -Legal Case,” available at link #27. -
^[140] +Legal Case,” available at link #27. +
^[140] Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR -(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. -
^[141] +(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. +
^[141] For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, “Legal Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1997): 651. -
^[142] +
^[142] FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003) (statement -of Senator John McCain).
^[143] +of Senator John McCain).
^[143] Lynette Holloway, “Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,” New York Times, 23 December 2002. -
^[144] +
^[144] Molly Ivins, “Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,” Charleston Gazette, 31 May 2003. -
^[145] +
^[145] -James Fallows, “The Age of Murdoch,” Atlantic -Monthly (September 2003): 89. -
^[146] +James Fallows, “The Age of Murdoch”, Atlantic +Monthly (September 2003): 89. +
^[146] Leonard Hill, “The Axis of Access,” remarks before Weidenbaum @@ -6696,7 +6706,7 @@ Center Forum, “Entertainment Econo St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at link #28; for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see link #29). -
^[147] +
^[147] NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media @@ -6705,17 +6715,18 @@ sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at link #30. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003. -
^[148] +
^[148] ibid. -
^[149] +
^[149] -“Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,” Now with -Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript -available at link #31. -
^[150] +“Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation”, Now with +Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift +tilgjengelig fra link +#31. +
^[150] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The @@ -6728,7 +6739,7 @@ Policy 14 (1985): 235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, -2001).
^[151] +2001).
^[151] The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the @@ -6753,25 +6764,25 @@ networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,” SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at link #32. The ground was that -the criticism was “too controversial.” - -
^[152] +the criticism was “too controversial.” + +
^[152] -Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his “four -surrenders” of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, -159–60. -
^[153] +Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans “fire +kapitulasjoner” for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se +Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. +
^[153] It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, “The Disintegration of Property,” in Nomos XXII: Property, J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, -1980). +1980).

Del III. Nøtter

Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera

In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in -the Peruvian Andes.^[154] The valley is +the Peruvian Andes.^[154] The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with “sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.” But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this @@ -6830,7 +6841,7 @@ with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. “But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the scene. …” -
+
Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have @@ -6865,7 +6876,7 @@ into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,” that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. - +
@@ -6890,9 +6901,9 @@ could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either -been proposed or actually implemented.^[155] +been proposed or actually implemented.^[155] -
+
Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted @@ -6944,23 +6955,23 @@ turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers, both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting -everyone's interests.^[156] +everyone's interests.^[156]

In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of “the major labels.” Its position on these matters has now -changed. +changed.

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. -

^[154] +

^[154] -H. G. Wells, “The Country of the Blind” (1904, 1911). See +H. G. Wells, “The Country of the Blind” (1904, 1911). Se H. G. Wells, The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). -
^[155] +
^[155] For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, @@ -6988,8 +6999,8 @@ Fines,” redandblack.com, August 2003, available at “RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,” -Boston Globe, 8 August 2003, D3, available at link #36. -
^[156] +Boston Globe, 8 August 2003, D3, available at link #36. +
^[156] WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital @@ -7013,7 +7024,7 @@ In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of the property called “intellectual property” is at its greatest in our history. -
+
Yet “common sense” does not see it this way. Common sense is still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical @@ -7076,13 +7087,13 @@ 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.^[157] And under legislation +$750 million.^[157] 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.^[158] Can +damages for pain and suffering.^[158] 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? +negligently butchering a patient?
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never @@ -7096,7 +7107,7 @@ the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a world of underground art—not because the message is necessarily political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of “illegal -art” tour the United States.^[159] In +art” tour the United States.^[159] In what does their “illegality” consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
@@ -7192,7 +7203,7 @@ 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. -
+
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy that I described in chapter 10. The consequence of this massive threat of liability @@ -7207,7 +7218,7 @@ Valley—has been learned. Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in The Future of Ideas and which has progressed in a way that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted. -
+
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 @@ -7219,7 +7230,7 @@ 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. +so on.
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 @@ -7274,11 +7285,11 @@ som gir r 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. -
+
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).^[160] The claim here, as well, was that the VC should +cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).^[160] The claim here, as well, was that the VC should have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim @@ -7288,14 +7299,14 @@ not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well. Your investment buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies that touch content. In an article in Business 2.0, -Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: -
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: +
I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car, there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system, but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are -sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … ^[161] +sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … ^[161]
This is the world of the mafia—filled with “your money or your life” offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats @@ -7361,13 +7372,13 @@ response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet. 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.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to +or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory “broadcast flag” that would be required on any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt -down copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163] +down copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163]
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why @@ -7378,9 +7389,9 @@ will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
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.^[164] Their argument was obviously +impose.^[164] Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any -protection should not do more harm than good. +protection should not do more harm than good.
There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed innovation—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free @@ -7393,7 +7404,7 @@ regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
As I described in chapter 10, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book -Digital Copyright,^[165] overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 +Digital Copyright,^[165] overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the @@ -7405,9 +7416,9 @@ new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.^[166] It has been mirrored in the responses threatened +The response by the courts has been fairly universal.^[166] It has been mirrored in the responses threatened and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses -here.^[167] But there is one example that +here.^[167] But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet radio.
@@ -7420,7 +7431,7 @@ version of “Happy Birthday& performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright owners of “Happy Birthday” would get some money, whereas -Marilyn Monroe would not. +Marilyn Monroe would not.
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist @@ -7470,11 +7481,11 @@ mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its -shackles.^[168] +shackles.^[168]
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not because Armstrong was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of -“vested interests, habits, customs and legislation”^[169] to retard the growth of this competing technology. +“vested interests, habits, customs and legislation”^[169] to retard the growth of this competing technology.
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio @@ -7498,7 +7509,7 @@ This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor 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.^[170] A regular radio station +year.^[170] A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were @@ -7568,7 +7579,7 @@ not. 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? -
+
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, @@ -7608,7 +7619,7 @@ citizens and weakens the rule of law. 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 The New York Times, 43 -million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.^[171] According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans +million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.^[171] According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search @@ -7627,7 +7638,7 @@ money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals—including a twelve-year-old girl living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what -file sharing was.^[172] As these scapegoats +file sharing was.^[172] As these scapegoats discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an @@ -7642,15 +7653,15 @@ gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number -were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war +were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7 -percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of +percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] 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.^[175] We pride ourselves on our “free +that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.^[175] We pride ourselves on our “free society,” but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans -regularly violate at least some law. +regularly violate at least some law.
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 @@ -7666,7 +7677,7 @@ case is over. Generations of Americans—more significantly in some parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America today—can't live their lives both normally and legally, since “normally” entails a certain degree of illegality. - +
The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make @@ -7726,7 +7737,7 @@ copy-protection technologies, I am ““freedom” was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the “Rip, Mix, Burn” capacities of digital technologies. -
+
This “use” of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program @@ -7795,10 +7806,10 @@ directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the “collateral damage” that “arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into criminals.” This is the collateral damage to -civil liberties generally. +civil liberties generally.
“If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,” von -Lohmann explains, +Lohmann explains,
then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to one degree or another. … If you're a copyright infringer, how can you @@ -7828,12 +7839,12 @@ copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of -these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.^[176] +these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.^[176]
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.^[177] Using a +to track Napster users.^[177] Using a sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those MP3s will have the same “fingerprint.” @@ -7847,7 +7858,7 @@ if the college network is “coopera espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter as a “criminal.” And under the rules -that universities are beginning to deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer +that universities are beginning to deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a @@ -7858,7 +7869,7 @@ university might not believe her. It might treat this “contraband” as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different. -Says von Lohmann, +Says von Lohmann,
So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the @@ -7883,15 +7894,15 @@ same objective— securing rights to authors—without these millions being considered “criminals,” 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? -

^[157] +

^[157] 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 link #37. - -
^[158] + +
^[158] The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an overview, see Tanya Albert, “Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be @@ -7900,15 +7911,15 @@ Back,' Say Tort Reformers,” amednews.com, 28 July 2003, avai “Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,” CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003, available at link #39. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent -months. -
^[159] +months. +
^[159] See Danit Lidor, “Artists Just Wanna Be Free,” Wired, 7 July 2003, available at link #40. For an overview of the exhibition, see link #41. -
^[160] +
^[160] See Joseph Menn, “Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,” @@ -7918,30 +7929,30 @@ Janelle Brown, “The Music Revoluti Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available at link #42. See also Jon Healey, “Online Music Services Besieged,” Los Angeles Times, 28 May 2001. -
^[161] +
^[161] Rafe Needleman, “Driving in Cars with MP3s,” Business 2.0, 16 June 2003, available at link #43. I am grateful to -Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. -
^[162] +Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. +
^[162] “Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,” GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School (2003), 33–35, available at link #44. -
^[163] +
^[163] GartnerG2, 26–27. -
^[164] +
^[164] See David McGuire, “Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,” Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment). -
^[165] +
^[165] Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, N.Y.: -Prometheus Books, 2001). -
^[166] +Prometheus Books, 2001). +
^[166] The only circuit court exception is found in Recording Industry @@ -7957,7 +7968,7 @@ Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability. -
^[167] +
^[167] For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize @@ -7970,16 +7981,16 @@ disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2, “Copyright and Digital Media in a -Post-Napster World,” 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at link #44. -
^[168] +Post-Napster World,” 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at link #44. +
^[168] Lessing, 239. -
^[169] +
^[169] Ibid., 229. -
^[170] +
^[170] This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by @@ -7995,39 +8006,39 @@ these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are 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.” - -
^[171] +media-neutral way.” + +
^[171] Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, “The Music Downloading Deluge,” Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at link #46. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded music files from the Internet by early 2001. -
^[172] +
^[172] Alex Pham, “The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,” Los Angeles Times, 10 September 2003, Business. -
^[173] +
^[173] Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, “Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition,” American Economic Review 81, no. 2 (1991): 242. -
^[174] +
^[174] 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). -
^[175] +
^[175] See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, “Tax Compliance,” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature). -
^[176] +
^[176] See Frank Ahrens, “RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single @@ -8042,12 +8053,12 @@ September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, “New York Times, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, “Is Brianna a Criminal?” Toronto Star, 18 September 2003, P7. -
^[177] +
^[177] See “Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some Methods Used,” CNN.com, available at link #47. -
^[178] +
^[178] See Jeff Adler, “Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not @@ -8143,7 +8154,7 @@ successfully (Cinderella), sometimes not (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet). These are all commercial publications of public domain works. -
+
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this @@ -8152,7 +8163,7 @@ for the taking. This has produced what we might call the “noncommercial publishing industry,” which before the Internet was limited to people with large egos or with political or social causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and -groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.^[179] +groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.^[179]
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection of poems New Hampshire was slated to pass into the @@ -8170,7 +8181,7 @@ period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain. This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow, Mary Bono, says, believed that “copyrights should be -forever.”^[180] +forever.”^[180]
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through @@ -8207,7 +8218,7 @@ requirement that terms be “limited effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly forbids—perpetual terms “on the installment plan,” as -Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. +Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
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 @@ -8295,10 +8306,10 @@ In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, this “theory” about incentives was proved real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the -Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.^[181] The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent +Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.^[181] 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.^[182] Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to -reelection campaigns in the cycle.^[183] +than $200,000 in campaign contributions.^[182] Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to +reelection campaigns in the cycle.^[183]
Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not @@ -8330,7 +8341,7 @@ limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every 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. -
+
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in United States v. Lopez. The government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate @@ -8343,15 +8354,15 @@ activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
“We pause to consider the implications of the government's -arguments,” the Chief Justice wrote.^[184] If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be +arguments,” the Chief Justice wrote.^[184] 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 Lopez was reaffirmed five years later in United States -v. Morrison.^[185] +v. Morrison.^[185]
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress -Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.^[186] +Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.^[186] And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could extend an existing term, then there would be no “stopping @@ -8389,10 +8400,10 @@ fighting a piracy that affects us all.
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public -domain is nothing more than “legal piracy.”^[187] But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in +domain is nothing more than “legal piracy.”^[187] But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a -pirate's charter. +pirate's charter.
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the @@ -8416,7 +8427,7 @@ affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 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.^[188] +generally.^[188]
@@ -8482,7 +8493,7 @@ to be used. The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized, and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other creative works is much more dire. -
+
Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between @@ -8492,7 +8503,7 @@ after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal of money. According to one estimate, “Roach has sold about 60,000 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent -films.”^[189] +films.”^[189]
Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that @@ -8511,7 +8522,7 @@ We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs. For most of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now -cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.^[190] +cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.^[190]
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important. @@ -8543,7 +8554,7 @@ costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit 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. -
+
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 canisters in which @@ -8653,7 +8664,7 @@ doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a -value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.^[191] +value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.^[191]
In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal @@ -8714,7 +8725,7 @@ Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne v 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. -
+
Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra @@ -8723,7 +8734,7 @@ Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra 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. -
+
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 about how this @@ -8784,7 +8795,7 @@ the general public seem to get bogged down?” The answer, as editorial documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control, -Schlafly argued. +Schlafly argued.
In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in @@ -8800,18 +8811,18 @@ were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments. - +
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. -
+National Writers Union. +
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. -
+
This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of @@ -8831,7 +8842,7 @@ history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried. - +
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 @@ -8841,7 +8852,7 @@ believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining -the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. +the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as well. Significantly, however, none of these “friends” included @@ -8860,13 +8871,13 @@ 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 -“glorify drugs or to create pornography.”^[192] That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, +“glorify drugs or to create pornography.”^[192] That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its “protection” of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license Porgy and Bess to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the -cast.^[193] That's their view of how this +cast.^[193] That's their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to -help them effect that control. +help them effect that control.
This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate. When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is @@ -8886,7 +8897,7 @@ would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy. -
+
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called “the Conservatives.” The other we called “the Rest.” The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice @@ -8895,7 +8906,7 @@ had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the five who had supported the Lopez/Morrison line of cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure that Congress's powers had limits. -
+
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice @@ -8914,7 +8925,7 @@ well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense. -
+
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 @@ -8980,18 +8991,18 @@ power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I found ways to take every question back to this central idea. -
+
One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review -of the moot, he let his concern speak: +of the moot, he let his concern speak:
“I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see that, then we haven't any chance of winning.” -
+
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 @@ -9058,7 +9069,7 @@ in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical 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. -
+
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the @@ -9171,7 +9182,7 @@ hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it will respect, that is the system we have. -
+
Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of @@ -9181,7 +9192,7 @@ parallel—without explaining how the 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. -
+
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was @@ -9233,7 +9244,7 @@ consistent with their own principles. My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as it is. -
+
Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won @@ -9259,10 +9270,10 @@ stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue. -
+
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? +Sullivan?
My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take @@ -9279,7 +9290,7 @@ 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 case was a mistake. “The Court is not ready,” Peter Jaszi said; this -issue should not be raised until it is. +issue should not be raised until it is.
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly, @@ -9308,8 +9319,8 @@ creative ferment. The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”). The “powerful and wealthy” line is a bit -unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. -
Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon

+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. +
Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon

The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from The New York Times. That “grand experiment” we call the “public domain” is over? When I @@ -9318,7 +9329,7 @@ Constitution.” But I can rarely make light of it. We had in 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. -

^[179] +

^[179] There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but @@ -9333,7 +9344,7 @@ noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to -protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.
^[180] +protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.
^[180] The full text is: “Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright @@ -9343,32 +9354,32 @@ our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As 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,” 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998). -
^[181] +
^[181] Associated Press, “Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,” Chicago Tribune, 17 October 1998, 22. -
^[182] +
^[182] See Nick Brown, “Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,” available at link #49. -
^[183] +
^[183] Alan K. Ota, “Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,” Congressional Quarterly This Week, 8 August 1990, available at link #50. -
^[184] +
^[184] United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995). -
^[185] +
^[185] United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). -
^[186] +
^[186] If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries @@ -9380,19 +9391,19 @@ the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the limitation to “limited times” notwithstanding. -
^[187] +
^[187] Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at link #51. -
^[188] +
^[188] 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, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 7, available at link #52. -
^[189] +
^[189] See David G. Savage, “High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright @@ -9400,7 +9411,7 @@ Law,” Los Angeles Times, 6 Octobe Streitfeld, “Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,” Orlando Sentinel Tribune, 9 October 2002. -
^[190] +
^[190] Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the @@ -9409,17 +9420,17 @@ v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618), 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the Internet Archive, Eldred v. Ashcroft, available at link #53. -
^[191] +
^[191] Jason Schultz, “The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,” 20 December 2002, available at link #54. -
^[192] +
^[192] Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19. -
^[193] +
^[193] Dinitia Smith, “Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse @@ -9433,7 +9444,7 @@ finally over—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece. -
+
It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And @@ -9461,7 +9472,7 @@ and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let the content go. -
+
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the @@ -9480,11 +9491,11 @@ marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified. -
+
As I described in chapter 10, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement -before a copyright is granted.^[194] The +before a copyright is granted.^[194] The Europeans are said to view copyright as a “natural right.” Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if @@ -9497,7 +9508,7 @@ copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread “Walt Disney creativity” is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's protected and what's not. -
+
The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908, to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the @@ -9559,7 +9570,7 @@ owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without formalities. Complex, expensive, lawyer transactions -take their place. +take their place.
This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't @@ -9609,7 +9620,7 @@ fifty years after a work was published. Based 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? -
+
Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de @@ -9621,7 +9632,7 @@ imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May 2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on the Eldred Act blog, “we are close.” There was a general reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here. - +
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of @@ -9690,7 +9701,7 @@ is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate what Kevin Kelly calls the “Dark Content” that fills archives around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should -ask one simple question: +ask one simple question:
Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
@@ -9716,7 +9727,7 @@ tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA 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. -
+
Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige @@ -9730,7 +9741,7 @@ the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing “< society.” 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. -

^[194] +

^[194] Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright @@ -9769,7 +9780,7 @@ av dem $25 afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig -utilgjengelig.^[195] +utilgjengelig.^[195]
@@ -9802,12 +9813,12 @@ nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is called “parallel importation,” and it is generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the -European Union.^[196] +European Union.^[196]
However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association characterized it, “The U.S. government pressured South Africa … -not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.”^[197] Through the Office of the United States Trade +not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.”^[197] 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 possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty @@ -9819,7 +9830,7 @@ obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular kind of 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.^[198] +effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.^[198]
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 @@ -9846,7 +9857,7 @@ selskapene betydelig.
Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the -sanctity of property.^[199] It was because +sanctity of property.^[199] It was because “intellectual property” would be violated that these drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of “intellectual property” that led these government actors to @@ -9910,7 +9921,7 @@ ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i v 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. -
+
En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi @@ -9934,10 +9945,10 @@ itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies, complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the “perfect storm” for free culture. -
+
In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a -meeting.^[200] At the request of a wide range +meeting.^[200] At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss “open and collaborative projects to create public goods.” These are projects that have been successful in producing public goods without relying @@ -9953,8 +9964,8 @@ companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, 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 “open -source and free software.” - +source and free software.” +
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell @@ -9963,7 +9974,7 @@ balansert med avtaler om begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen -ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var +ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som @@ -10014,8 +10025,8 @@ famous bit of “free software“open source and free software” is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to support a mode of software development that is different from -Microsoft's.^[202] - +Microsoft's.^[202] +
More important for our purposes, to support “open source and free @@ -10038,8 +10049,8 @@ bruker sine lobbyister til ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I følge Jonathan Krim i Washington Post, lyktes Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et -slikt møte.^[203] Og uten støtte fra USA ble -møtet avlyst. +slikt møte.^[203] Og uten støtte fra USA ble +møtet avlyst.
Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er @@ -10087,7 +10098,7 @@ that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right -to decide what to do with their property. +to decide what to do with their property.
When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting @@ -10109,9 +10120,9 @@ in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by liberating people or property within their control to the free market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought any freedom that might interfere with that control. -
+
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget -vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.^[204] +vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.^[204] Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være fritt eller føydalt. Trenden er @@ -10170,7 +10181,7 @@ sannheten. Det kan v mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur. -
+
Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere @@ -10179,7 +10190,7 @@ partiene for organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med -krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. +krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet @@ -10216,11 +10227,11 @@ muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet for våre tragedie. -
+
As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA -lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.^[205] Eminem has just been sued for -“sampling” someone else's music.^[206] The story about Bob Dylan “stealing” from a Japanese -author has just finished making the rounds.^[207] An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain +lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.^[205] Eminem has just been sued for +“sampling” someone else's music.^[206] The story about Bob Dylan “stealing” from a Japanese +author has just finished making the rounds.^[207] An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain anonymous—reports “an amazing conversation with these studio guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of @@ -10229,14 +10240,14 @@ of lawyers to clean it first.” Congressmen are 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. -
+
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it will build a “Creative Archive,” from which British citizens -can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.^[208] And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil, +can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.^[208] 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.^[209] I've told a dark story. The +country.^[209] 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 freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and @@ -10250,7 +10261,7 @@ snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert. -

^[195] +

^[195] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, “Final Report: Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy” (London, 2002), @@ -10258,12 +10269,12 @@ available at . According to a World Health Organization press 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. -
^[196] +
^[196] Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New Press, 2003), -37. -
^[197] +37. +
^[197] International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent @@ -10274,13 +10285,13 @@ account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22 July 1999), 150–57 (statement of James Love). -
^[198] +
^[198] International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property -Organization (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.
^[199] +Organization (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.
^[199] @@ -10297,7 +10308,7 @@ the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,” Widener Law Symposium Journal (Spring 2001): 175. -
^[200] +
^[200] Jonathan Krim, “The Quiet War over Open-Source,” Washington Post, August 2003, E1, available at link #59; William New, @@ -10308,10 +10319,10 @@ William New, “U.S. Official Oppose WIPO,” National Journal's Technology Daily, 19 August 2003, available at link #61. -
^[201] +
^[201] Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet. -
^[202] +
^[202] Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more @@ -10328,15 +10339,15 @@ Research, 2002), 69, available at The Commercial Software Model, discussion at New York University Stern School of Business (3 May 2001), available at link #63. -
^[203] +
^[203] Krim, “The Quiet War over Open-Source,” available at link #64. -
^[204] +
^[204] Se Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, -210–20. -
^[205] +210–20. +
^[205] John Borland, “RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,” CNET News.com, @@ -10350,23 +10361,23 @@ Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,” Washington Post, 10 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, “Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,” Wired News, 10 September 2003, available at link #67. -
^[206] +
^[206] Jon Wiederhorn, “Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady,” mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at link #68. -
^[207] +
^[207] Kenji Hall, Associated Press, “Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan Songs,” Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at link #69. -
^[208] +
^[208] “BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,” BBC press release, 24 August 2003, available at link #70. -
^[209] +
^[209] “Creative Commons and Brazil,” Creative Commons Weblog, 6 @@ -10463,7 +10474,7 @@ amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law (there is no law protecting “privacy” in public places), and in many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead, by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy. -
+
Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this @@ -10471,7 +10482,7 @@ because at the side of the page, there's a list of “” pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any “privacy” -protected by the friction disappears, too. +protected by the friction disappears, too.
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 @@ -10485,7 +10496,7 @@ the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears. It is this reality that explains the push of many to define “privacy” on the Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push -for laws to do what friction did.^[210] And +for laws to do what friction did.^[210] 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 @@ -10497,8 +10508,8 @@ movement. When computers with software were first made available commercially, the software—both the source code and the binaries— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much -about controlling their software. -
+about controlling their software. +
Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den @@ -10534,7 +10545,7 @@ Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's “Linux” kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating -system. +system.
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software @@ -10607,7 +10618,7 @@ that work to the Public Library of Science. That work is then subject to peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not -inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. +inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.
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 @@ -10615,7 +10626,7 @@ doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge and science. -
~~16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
+
~~16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
@@ -10671,7 +10682,7 @@ getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a movement of consumers and producers of content (“content conducers,” as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public -domain to other creativity. +domain to other creativity.
The aim is not to fight the “All Rights Reserved” sorts. The aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a @@ -10711,8 +10722,8 @@ All, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well. - -
+ +
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use @@ -10725,9 +10736,9 @@ others. Because the legal costs of sampli (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not “allow” Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs -are so high^[211]), these artists release +are so high^[211]), these artists release into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that -their form of creativity might grow. +their form of creativity might grow.
Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license just because they want to express to others the importance of @@ -10760,7 +10771,7 @@ project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily. -
~~16.2. Dem, snart~~
+
~~16.2. Dem, snart~~
We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But @@ -10805,7 +10816,7 @@ the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the lack of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
-The law should therefore change this requirement^[212]—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken +The law should therefore change this requirement^[212]—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.
@@ -10881,7 +10892,7 @@ published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that 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.^[213] The meaning of an unmarked +permission.^[213] The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be “use unless someone complains.” If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing @@ -10932,7 +10943,7 @@ of renewal every five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost Eldred v. Ashcroft, the proposals became even more radical. The Economist endorsed a proposal for a -fourteen-year copyright term.^[214] Others +fourteen-year copyright term.^[214] Others have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's @@ -10968,10 +10979,10 @@ Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes -for a veteran to apply for a pension.^[215] +for a veteran to apply for a pension.^[215] 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. - +
~~@@ -11015,15 +11026,15 @@ movie is not “my writing.&#~~
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.^[216] The courts +dramatizations of a work.^[216] 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. +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.^[217] +abracadabra of idea and expression.^[217]
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 @@ -11037,7 +11048,7 @@ John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long -after the creative work is done. +after the creative work is done.
Scope: Likewise should the scope of derivative rights be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are @@ -11058,7 +11069,7 @@ unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
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.^[218] His view is that the law should be written so that +reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.^[218] His view is that the law should be written so that expanded protections follow expanded uses.
Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal @@ -11174,7 +11185,7 @@ money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though “free” content is available in the form of MP3s across the -Web.^[219] +Web.^[219]
~~@@ -11274,7 +11285,7 @@ eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverand bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.~~
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by -Harvard law professor William Fisher.^[220] +Harvard law professor William Fisher.^[220] Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to @@ -11295,7 +11306,7 @@ a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content, supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the -old system of controlling access. +old system of controlling access.
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is @@ -11306,7 +11317,7 @@ described were accomplished—in particular, the limits on derivative 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. -
+
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of “harm” to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating @@ -11410,7 +11421,7 @@ significant figures in the history of this branch of the 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.^[221] +obvious.^[221]
Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler @@ -11420,7 +11431,7 @@ om v 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.^[222] De ser et system som har +lav.^[222] De ser et system som har eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
@@ -11471,7 +11482,7 @@ ikke?” Vi burde spørre: “Hvorfor?”. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna. -

~~^[210] +~~

^[210] @@ -11482,54 +11493,54 @@ par. 6–18, available at The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between -technology and privacy).
^[211] +technology and privacy).
^[211] Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real Culture Wars (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at link #72. -
^[212] +
^[212] 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.
^[213] +by other countries as well.
^[213] 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. -
^[214] +
^[214] “A Radical Rethink,” Economist, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15, available at link #74. -
^[215] +
^[215] Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig fra link #75. -
^[216] +
^[216] Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32. -
^[217] +
^[217] Ibid., 56. -
^[218] +
^[218] Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), -187–216. -
^[219] +187–216. +
^[219] See, for example, “Music Media Watch,” The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at link #76. -
^[220] +
^[220] William Fisher, Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at @@ -11559,14 +11570,14 @@ Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a decade. See link #85. - -
^[221] + +
^[221] Lawrence Lessig, “Copyright's First Amendment” (Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), UCLA Law Review 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70. -
^[222] +
^[222] A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to @@ -11581,7 +11592,7 @@ Industry?” working paper, June 2003, available at Rethinking, 174–76. - +
~~Kapittel 17. Notater~~
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 @@ -11597,7 +11608,7 @@ Denne boken er produktet av en lang og s 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. -
+
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 @@ -11648,4 +11659,4 @@ Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert 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. -
~~Indeks~~
A
~~ABC, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Adobe eBook Reader, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Adromeda, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~advertising, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde, Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Africa, medications for HIV patients in, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Agee, Michael, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~agricultural patents, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Aibo robothund, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~akademiske tidsskrifter, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Akerlof, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Alben, Alex, Kapittel åtte: Omformere, Constraining Innovators~~
~~alcohol prohibition, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~All in the Family, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Allen, Paul, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Amazon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~American Association of Law Libraries, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~American Graphophone Company, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Anello, Douglas, Kabel-TV~~
~~antiretroviral drugs, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Aristoteles, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Arrow, Kenneth, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~artister~~
~~publicity rights on images of, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~ASCAP, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~AT&T, Introduksjon~~
~~Ayer, Don, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
B
~~Bacon, Francis, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Barish, Stephanie, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Barlow, Joel, Introduksjon~~
~~Barry, Hank, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Beatles, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Beckett, Thomas, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Bell, Alexander Graham, Introduksjon~~
~~Berlin Act (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Berman, Howard L., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Bern-konvensjonen (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Bernstein, Leonard, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Betamax, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Black, Jane, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~BMG, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~BMW, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Boies, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Bolling, Ruben, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Boswell, James, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Braithwaite, John, Konklusjon~~
~~Brandeis, Louis D., Introduksjon, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Breyer, Stephen, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Bromberg, Dan, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Brown, John Seely, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Buchanan, James, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Bunyan, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Burdick, Quentin, Kabel-TV~~
~~Bush, George W., Constraining Creators~~
C
~~Camp Chaos, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), Constraining Innovators~~
~~Carson, Rachel, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Casablanca, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Causby, Thomas Lee, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon~~
~~Causby, Tinie, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon~~
~~CBS, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~chimeras, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Christensen, Clayton M., Piratvirksomhet II, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Clark, Kim B., Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~CNN, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Coase, Ronald, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~CodePink Women in Peace, Forord, Konklusjon~~
~~Coe, Brian, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Comcast, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Commons, John R., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Conrad, Paul, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Conyers, John, Jr., Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~cookies, Internet, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~copyleft licenses, Konklusjon~~
~~Country of the Blind, The (Wells), Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Creative Commons, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Crichton, Michael, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Crosskey, William W., Loven: Varighet~~
D
~~Daguerre, Louis, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Daley, Elizabeth, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~dataspill, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Day After Trinity, The, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~DDT, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Dean, Howard, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Diller, Barry, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Disney, Inc., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Drahos, Peter, Piratvirksomhet I, Konklusjon~~
~~Dreyfuss, Rochelle, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Drucker, Peter, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Dylan, Bob, Konklusjon~~
E
~~Eagle Forum, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Eastman, George, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Edison, Thomas, Introduksjon~~
~~Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~EMI, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Erskine, Andrew, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
F
~~Fallows, James, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Fanning, Shawn, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Faraday, Michael, Introduksjon~~
~~Fisher, William, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Florida, Richard, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Forbes, Steve, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~fotografering, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Fourneaux, Henri, Innspilt musikk, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Fox, William, Film~~
~~Free for All (Wayner), Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Fried, Charles, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Friedman, Milton, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
G
~~Garlick, Mia, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Gates, Bill, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Konklusjon~~
~~General Film Company, Film~~
~~Gershwin, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Gil, Gilberto, Konklusjon~~
~~GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, Piratvirksomhet I, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Goldstein, Paul, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
~~Gracie Films, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~Grisham, John, Innspilt musikk, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
H
~~Hal Roach Studios, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Hand, Learned, Radio~~
~~Hawthorne, Nathaniel, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Henry V, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Henry VIII, Konge av England, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Heston, Charlton, Kabel-TV~~
~~HIV/AIDS therapies, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Hollings, Fritz, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hummer Winblad, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hummer, John, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hyde, Rosel H., Kabel-TV~~
I
~~IBM, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Intel, Constraining Innovators, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Internet Explorer, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Iwerks, Ub, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
J
~~Jaszi, Peter, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~jernbaneindustri, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Johnson, Lyndon, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Johnson, Samuel, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
K
~~Kaplan, Benjamin, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
~~Kelly, Kevin, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Kennedy, John F., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Kittredge, Alfred, Innspilt musikk~~
~~kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Kozinski, Alex, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Krim, Jonathan, Konklusjon~~
L
~~Laurel and Hardy Films, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~law schools, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~Leaphart, Walter, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Lear, Norman, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~legal realist movement, Sammen~~
~~Licensing Act (1662), Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Liebowitz, Stan, Piratvirksomhet I, Piratvirksomhet II, 5. Spark en masse advokater~~
~~Linux-operativsystemet, Piratvirksomhet I, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Litman, Jessica, Introduksjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Lofgren, Zoe, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Lott, Trent, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Lovett, Lyle, Radio, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Lucky Dog, The, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
M
~~Madonna, Radio, Radio, Piratvirksomhet II, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, “Piratvirksomhet”, “Piratvirksomhet”, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Marijuana Policy Project, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Marx Brothers, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~McCain, John, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~MGM, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Microsoft~~
~~Windows operating system of, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Milton, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Morrison, Alan, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Movie Archive, Kapittel ni: Samlere~~
~~Moyers, Bill, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Müller, Paul Hermann, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
N
~~Nashville Songwriters Association, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~National Writers Union, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~NBC, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Needleman, Rafe, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Netanel, Neil Weinstock, Introduksjon, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Netscape, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Nimmer, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
P
~~Paramount Pictures, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Picker, Randal C., Film, Radio, Piratvirksomhet II, Constraining Innovators~~
~~PLoS (Public Library of Science), Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Pogue, David, Forord, Forord~~
~~Politikk, (Aristotles), Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Promises to Keep (Fisher), 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Public Citizen, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Public Enemy, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
Q
~~Quayle, Dan, Kapittel ni: Samlere~~
R
~~rap music, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Reagan, Ronald, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon~~
~~Real Networks, Constraining Innovators, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Rehnquist, William H., Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Kapittel tre: Kataloger, Kapittel tre: Kataloger~~
~~Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Roberts, Michael, Constraining Innovators~~
~~robothund, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Rogers, Fred, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Rose, Mark, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Takk til~~
~~RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))~~
~~Rubenfeld, Jeb, Loven: Virkeområde~~
~~Russel, Phil, Innspilt musikk~~
S
~~Safire, William, Forord, Konklusjon~~
~~San Francisco Opera, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~Sarnoff, David, Introduksjon~~
~~Schlafly, Phyllis, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Shakespeare, William, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Silent Sprint (Carson), Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Sony~~
~~Aibo robothund produsert av, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Sony Pictures Entertainment, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Stallman, Richard, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Steward, Geoffrey, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
T
~~Talbot, William, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~tegnefilmer, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
~~Turner, Ted, Konklusjon~~
~~Twentieth Century Fox, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
U
~~Universal Music Group, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Universal Pictures, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
V
~~Vaidhyanathan, Siva, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Film, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Sammen~~
~~veterans' pensions, 2. Kortere vernetid~~
~~Vivendi Universal, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Constraining Innovators~~
~~von Lohmann, Fred, Corrupting Citizens~~
W
~~Warner Brothers, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Warner Music Group, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Warren, Samuel D., Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Wayner, Peter, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Webster, Noah, Introduksjon~~
~~Wells, H. G., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Windows, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Winer, Dave, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Winick, Judd, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
~~WJOA, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Worldcom, Constraining Creators~~
~~WRC, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
Y
~~Yanofsky, Dave, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
Z
~~Zimmerman, Edwin, Kabel-TV~~
~~Zittrain, Jonathan, “Piratvirksomhet”, Loven: Virkeområde~~
+
~~Indeks~~
A
~~ABC, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Adobe eBook Reader, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Adromeda, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~advertising, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde, Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Africa, medications for HIV patients in, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Agee, Michael, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~agricultural patents, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Aibo robothund, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~akademiske tidsskrifter, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Akerlof, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Alben, Alex, Kapittel åtte: Omformere, Constraining Innovators~~
~~alcohol prohibition, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~All in the Family, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Allen, Paul, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Amazon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~American Association of Law Libraries, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~American Graphophone Company, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Anello, Douglas, Kabel-TV~~
~~antiretroviral drugs, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Aristoteles, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Arrow, Kenneth, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~artister~~
~~publicity rights on images of, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~ASCAP, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~AT&T, Introduksjon~~
~~Ayer, Don, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
B
~~Bacon, Francis, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Barish, Stephanie, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Barlow, Joel, Introduksjon~~
~~Barry, Hank, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Beatles, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Beckett, Thomas, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Bell, Alexander Graham, Introduksjon~~
~~Berlin Act (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Berman, Howard L., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Bern-konvensjonen (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Bernstein, Leonard, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Betamax, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Black, Jane, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~BMG, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~BMW, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Boies, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Bolling, Ruben, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Boswell, James, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Braithwaite, John, Konklusjon~~
~~Brandeis, Louis D., Introduksjon, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Breyer, Stephen, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Bromberg, Dan, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Brown, John Seely, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Buchanan, James, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Bunyan, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Burdick, Quentin, Kabel-TV~~
~~Bush, George W., Constraining Creators~~
C
~~Camp Chaos, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), Constraining Innovators~~
~~Carson, Rachel, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Casablanca, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Causby, Thomas Lee, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon~~
~~Causby, Tinie, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon~~
~~CBS, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~chimeras, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Christensen, Clayton M., Piratvirksomhet II, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Clark, Kim B., Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~CNN, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Coase, Ronald, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~CodePink Women in Peace, Forord, Konklusjon~~
~~Coe, Brian, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Comcast, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Commons, John R., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Conrad, Paul, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Conyers, John, Jr., Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~cookies, Internet, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~copyleft licenses, Konklusjon~~
~~Country of the Blind, The (Wells), Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Creative Commons, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Crichton, Michael, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Crosskey, William W., Loven: Varighet~~
D
~~Daguerre, Louis, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Daley, Elizabeth, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~dataspill, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Day After Trinity, The, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~DDT, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Dean, Howard, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Diller, Barry, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Disney, Inc., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Drahos, Peter, Piratvirksomhet I, Konklusjon~~
~~Dreyfuss, Rochelle, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Drucker, Peter, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
~~Dylan, Bob, Konklusjon~~
E
~~Eagle Forum, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Eastman, George, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Edison, Thomas, Introduksjon~~
~~Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~EMI, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Erskine, Andrew, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
F
~~Fallows, James, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Fanning, Shawn, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Faraday, Michael, Introduksjon~~
~~Fisher, William, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Florida, Richard, “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Forbes, Steve, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~fotografering, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Fourneaux, Henri, Innspilt musikk, Innspilt musikk~~
~~Fox, William, Film~~
~~Free for All (Wayner), Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Fried, Charles, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Friedman, Milton, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
G
~~Garlick, Mia, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Gates, Bill, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Konklusjon~~
~~General Film Company, Film~~
~~Gershwin, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Gil, Gilberto, Konklusjon~~
~~GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, Piratvirksomhet I, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Goldstein, Paul, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
~~Gracie Films, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~Grisham, John, Innspilt musikk, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
H
~~Hal Roach Studios, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Hand, Learned, Radio~~
~~Hawthorne, Nathaniel, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Henry V, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Henry VIII, Konge av England, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Heston, Charlton, Kabel-TV~~
~~HIV/AIDS therapies, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Hollings, Fritz, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hummer Winblad, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hummer, John, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Hyde, Rosel H., Kabel-TV~~
I
~~IBM, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Intel, Constraining Innovators, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Internet Explorer, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Iwerks, Ub, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
J
~~Jaszi, Peter, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~jernbaneindustri, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Johnson, Lyndon, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Johnson, Samuel, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
K
~~Kaplan, Benjamin, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk~~
~~Kelly, Kevin, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Kennedy, John F., Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Kittredge, Alfred, Innspilt musikk~~
~~kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Kozinski, Alex, Piratvirksomhet II~~
~~Krim, Jonathan, Konklusjon~~
L
~~Laurel and Hardy Films, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~law schools, Corrupting Citizens~~
~~Leaphart, Walter, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Lear, Norman, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~legal realist movement, Sammen~~
~~Licensing Act (1662), Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Liebowitz, Stan, Piratvirksomhet I, Piratvirksomhet II, 5. Spark en masse advokater~~
~~Linux-operativsystemet, Piratvirksomhet I, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Litman, Jessica, Introduksjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Lofgren, Zoe, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Lott, Trent, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Lovett, Lyle, Radio, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II~~
~~Lucky Dog, The, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
M
~~Madonna, Radio, Radio, Piratvirksomhet II, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, “Piratvirksomhet”, “Piratvirksomhet”, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Marijuana Policy Project, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Marx Brothers, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~McCain, John, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~MGM, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Microsoft~~
~~Windows operating system of, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Milton, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Morrison, Alan, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Movie Archive, Kapittel ni: Samlere~~
~~Moyers, Bill, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Müller, Paul Hermann, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
N
~~Nashville Songwriters Association, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~National Writers Union, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~NBC, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Needleman, Rafe, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Netanel, Neil Weinstock, Introduksjon, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Netscape, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Nimmer, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere~~
P
~~Paramount Pictures, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Picker, Randal C., Film, Radio, Piratvirksomhet II, Constraining Innovators~~
~~PLoS (Public Library of Science), Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Pogue, David, Forord, Forord~~
~~Politikk, (Aristotles), Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Promises to Keep (Fisher), 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Public Citizen, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Public Enemy, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
Q
~~Quayle, Dan, Kapittel ni: Samlere~~
R
~~rap music, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Reagan, Ronald, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon~~
~~Real Networks, Constraining Innovators, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen~~
~~Rehnquist, William H., Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Kapittel tre: Kataloger, Kapittel tre: Kataloger~~
~~Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), “Piratvirksomhet”~~
~~Roberts, Michael, Constraining Innovators~~
~~robothund, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Rogers, Fred, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Rose, Mark, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Takk til~~
~~RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))~~
~~Rubenfeld, Jeb, Loven: Virkeområde~~
~~Russel, Phil, Innspilt musikk~~
S
~~Safire, William, Forord, Konklusjon~~
~~San Francisco Opera, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne~~
~~Sarnoff, David, Introduksjon~~
~~Schlafly, Phyllis, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
~~Shakespeare, William, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne~~
~~Silent Sprint (Carson), Hvorfor Hollywood har rett~~
~~Sony~~
~~Aibo robothund produsert av, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Sony Pictures Entertainment, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
~~Stallman, Richard, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler~~
~~Steward, Geoffrey, Kapittel tretten: Eldred~~
T
~~Talbot, William, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~tegnefilmer, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
~~Turner, Ted, Konklusjon~~
~~Twentieth Century Fox, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
U
~~Universal Music Group, Marked: Konsentrasjon, Constraining Innovators~~
~~Universal Pictures, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”~~
V
~~Vaidhyanathan, Siva, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Film, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Sammen~~
~~veterans' pensions, 2. Kortere vernetid~~
~~Vivendi Universal, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Constraining Innovators~~
~~von Lohmann, Fred, Corrupting Citizens~~
W
~~Warner Brothers, Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt~~
~~Warner Music Group, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Warren, Samuel D., Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Wayner, Peter, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé~~
~~Webster, Noah, Introduksjon~~
~~Wells, H. G., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera~~
~~Windows, Piratvirksomhet I~~
~~Winer, Dave, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
~~Winick, Judd, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Kapittel en: Skaperne~~
~~WJOA, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
~~Worldcom, Constraining Creators~~
~~WRC, Marked: Konsentrasjon~~
Y
~~Yanofsky, Dave, Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”~~
Z
~~Zimmerman, Edwin, Kabel-TV~~
~~Zittrain, Jonathan, “Piratvirksomhet”, Loven: Virkeområde~~
diff --git a/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf b/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf index 0a0d155..8aa6ec1 100644 Binary files a/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf and b/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf differ diff --git a/progress.png b/progress.png index ddda0c3..cf1311b 100644 Binary files a/progress.png and b/progress.png differ diff --git a/stats.txt b/stats.txt index 5a90e12..41b4696 100644 --- a/stats.txt +++ b/stats.txt @@ -174,3 +174,11 @@ 2012-08-10T2116 702 oversatte meldinger, 922 antatte oversettelser, 239 uoversatte meldinger. 2012-08-10T2217 702 oversatte meldinger, 922 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. 2012-08-10T2219 706 oversatte meldinger, 918 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T0724 727 oversatte meldinger, 897 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T0733 739 oversatte meldinger, 885 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T0741 743 oversatte meldinger, 881 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T0928 765 oversatte meldinger, 859 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T0936 773 oversatte meldinger, 851 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T1059 802 oversatte meldinger, 822 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T1106 814 oversatte meldinger, 810 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-08-11T1113 829 oversatte meldinger, 795 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger.