From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:33:13 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Clean up XML. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~2441 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/189c387d9ec966f41b91626ecd6f436e81facbb9?ds=sidebyside Clean up XML. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index 3e5aa7a..a2ef081 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -8095,9 +8095,9 @@ Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). - 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. +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. I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media @@ -8120,41 +8120,36 @@ any position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once -wrecked by drugs—though the drugs that wrecked my family were all -quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the - collateral -damage from it is so great as to make waging the war insane. -When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice system, the -desperation of generations of kids whose only real economic - opportunities -are as drug warriors, the queering of constitutional protections - because -of the constant surveillance this war requires, and, most profoundly, -the total destruction of the legal systems of many South American - nations -because of the power of the local drug cartels, I find it impossible -to believe that the marginal benefit in reduced drug consumption by -Americans could possibly outweigh these costs. - - -You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and -it is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we - depend -fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about +wrecked by drugs—though the drugs that wrecked my family were +all quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the +collateral damage from it is so great as to make waging the war +insane. When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice +system, the desperation of generations of kids whose only real +economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the queering of +constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance this +war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal +systems of many South American nations because of the power of the +local drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal +benefit in reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly +outweigh these costs. + + +You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it +is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we +depend fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues. -Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy -launched a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The - campaign -produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal -drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, -discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the -collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of -drug legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way -against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his -mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on -the pro-legalization campaign. +Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched +a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The campaign produced +scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In +one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, discussing +the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the collateral +damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug +legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way +against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes +his mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning +attack on the pro-legalization campaign. Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its @@ -8163,98 +8158,88 @@ message well. It's a fair and reasonable message. But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to -demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the -drug war. Can you do it? +demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug +war. Can you do it? Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in -the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your - message -will be heard then? +the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your +message will be heard then? -No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of - avoiding +No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding "controversial" ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed -uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial. -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. +uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are +controversial. 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. -The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that -directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the -Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as "against [their] - policy." -The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without reviewing -them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the ads and -accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and - returned -the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. -These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for - example, -Nat Ives, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with -Rejection from TV Networks," New York Times, 13 March 2003, C4. - Outside -of election-related air time there is very little that the FCC or the -courts are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general overview, -see Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial - Advertising -on Television and Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): -449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the -courts, see Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d -872 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as -the 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." - - - -I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in -a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media -throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control - access -to the media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which -political 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. - +The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads +that directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within +the Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as "against +[their] policy." The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads +without reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally +agreed to run the ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided +not to run the ads and returned the collected fees. Interview with +Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. These restrictions are, of course, not +limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, "On the Issue of +an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks," New +York Times, 13 March 2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time +there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to +even the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, "Ad +Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and +Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a +more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see +Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d 872 +(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as +the 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." +/para> + + +I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived +in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the +media throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies +control access to the media, and that handful of companies gets to +decide which political 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. Together -There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the - copyright -warriors that the government should "protect my property." In -the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No -sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree. +There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the +copyright warriors that the government should "protect my property." +In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally +harmless. No sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree. But when we see how dramatically this "property" has changed— -when we recognize how it might now interact with both technology -and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty to - cultivate -our culture is dramatically different—the claim begins to seem +when we recognize how it might now interact with both technology and +markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty to +cultivate our culture is dramatically different—the claim begins +to seem -less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to - supplement -the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets -to weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the - massively -expanded "property" rights granted by copyright fundamentally -changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our -past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined. +less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to +supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated +markets to weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing +the massively expanded "property" rights granted by copyright +fundamentally changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and +build upon our past, then we have to ask whether this property should +be redefined. Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish @@ -8263,62 +8248,51 @@ mistake, disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture today. -But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture - notwithstanding. -And these massive shifts in the effective power of copyright -regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content industry and -resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly enable control -over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether another - adjustment -is called for. Not an adjustment that increases copyright's -power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an - adjustment -to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's -regulation—a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity. +But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture +notwithstanding. And these massive shifts in the effective power of +copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content +industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly +enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider +whether another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that +increases copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its +term. Rather, an adjustment to restore the balance that has +traditionally defined copyright's regulation—a weakening of that +regulation, to strengthen creativity. -Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of - constant -commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and +Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of +constant commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of time, as the technologies of distribution and creation -have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by - copyright -holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in - technology -suggest that we may well need similar changes in the future. And -these changes have to be reductions in the scope of copyright, in - response -to the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the -market enable. +have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by +copyright holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in +technology suggest that we may well need similar changes in the +future. And these changes have to be reductions in the scope of +copyright, in response to the extraordinary increase in control that +technology and the market enable. For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and - changing -technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion: -Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the - development -of our culture than now. - - -Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were -perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when only -publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much more -diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for even -then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers were - independent -of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a wide -range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was -remotely as long. This form of regulation—a tiny regulation of a tiny -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. +changing technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion: +Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of +the development of our culture than now. + + Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were +perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when +only publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much +more diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for +even then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers +were independent of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a +wide range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term +that was remotely as long. This form of regulation—a tiny +regulation of a tiny 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. Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his "four surrenders" of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. @@ -8329,12 +8303,10 @@ This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated. At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and -noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have - distinguished -between copying a work and transforming it. We can now +noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have +distinguished between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes -that copyright law has undergone. -In 1790, the law looked like this: +that copyright law has undergone. In 1790, the law looked like this: @@ -8401,20 +8373,16 @@ By the end of the nineteenth century, the law had changed to this:
-Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if - published, -which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, +Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if +published, which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still essentially free. -In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and - after +In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the -technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law - expanded. -Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more - common, +technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law +expanded. Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to look like this: