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 @@ -912,25 +912,27 @@ Jr. var en klassiker av denne typen, ber for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen var en klassisk Keaton—fantastisk populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.

-Steamboat Bill, Jr. appeared before Disney's cartoon -Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat -Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,^[20] and both are built upon a common song as a -source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in -The Jazz Singer that we get Steamboat -Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat -Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song “Steamboat Bill,” that -we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse. -

-This “borrowing” was nothing unique, either for Disney or for -the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream -films of his day.^[21] So did many -others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs—slight variations on -winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the -brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his -animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the -production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were -built upon a base that was borrowed. Disney added to the work of others -before him, creating something new out of something just barely old. +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 +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 +Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen “Steamboat Bill”, +at vi får Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus. +

+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. +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 +gnisten til hans animasjoner. Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide +relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med. +Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt. +Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut +av noe som bare var litt gammelt.

Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så @@ -963,19 +965,19 @@ 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. -

-This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and -celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except -this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize its importance. We -could call this “Disney creativity,” though that would be a bit -misleading. It is, more precisely, “Walt Disney -creativity”—a form of expression and genius that builds upon -the culture around us and makes it something different. +

+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. +Vi kan kalle dette “Disney-kreativitet”, selv om det vil være +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 +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 @@ -1072,7 +1074,7 @@ 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] +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 @@ -1080,14 +1082,14 @@ allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, “” There are things Superman “cannot” do. “As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.” -

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 @@ -1122,7 +1124,7 @@ du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom f 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 +“intellectual property.”^[25] A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.

@@ -1195,12 +1197,12 @@ affiliated with a studio or not? 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, @@ -1213,12 +1215,12 @@ 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] -He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, “The Mouse -that Ate the Public Domain,” Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at link #5. -

^[22] +Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, “The Mouse +that Ate the Public Domain,” Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra link #5. +

^[22] Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an @@ -1230,12 +1232,12 @@ 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 #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 @@ -1247,7 +1249,7 @@ 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] +

^[25] The term intellectual property is of relatively recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and @@ -1256,7 +1258,7 @@ 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. - +

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

In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for producing what we would call “photographs.” Appropriately @@ -1264,7 +1266,7 @@ enough, they were called “daguerre 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.) +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 @@ -1273,7 +1275,7 @@ pictures.” William Talbot soon discovered a process for maki 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. +was still not a process within reach of most amateurs.
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke @@ -1288,8 +1290,8 @@ 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: +rest.”^[26] As he described in +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 @@ -1298,7 +1300,7 @@ 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 @@ -1308,9 +1310,9 @@ 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] -
+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 @@ -1321,7 +1323,7 @@ author Brian Coe notes, “For the f 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] +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 @@ -1340,7 +1342,7 @@ 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 @@ -1350,12 +1352,12 @@ 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. -
+
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. @@ -1367,7 +1369,7 @@ 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]) +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, @@ -1407,12 +1409,12 @@ 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] +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 @@ -1423,16 +1425,16 @@ more and more of something teachers call ““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.” +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 +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 @@ -1454,21 +1456,21 @@ 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 +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] -
+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 @@ -1496,10 +1498,10 @@ 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 +express.”^[38] It is to enable students “to communicate in the language of the twenty-first -century.”^[39] -
+century.”^[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 @@ -1588,7 +1590,7 @@ screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was “ 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 @@ -1657,11 +1659,11 @@ 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] +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 +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.
@@ -1670,7 +1672,7 @@ 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.
@@ -1692,7 +1694,7 @@ 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. +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 @@ -1703,7 +1705,7 @@ 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] +majority leader.^[43]
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler. @@ -1728,12 +1730,12 @@ you have to take the conflict of interest” out of journalism 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 +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 @@ -1747,7 +1749,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -1759,7 +1761,7 @@ blogs. “It's going to become an es 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 +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 @@ -1779,7 +1781,7 @@ 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.” @@ -1831,7 +1833,7 @@ 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 @@ -1847,7 +1849,7 @@ 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.
@@ -1860,7 +1862,7 @@ 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 @@ -1869,28 +1871,28 @@ 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 @@ -1898,11 +1900,11 @@ 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] +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. +

^[33] See Melville B. Nimmer, “The Right of Publicity,” @@ -1911,62 +1913,62 @@ L. Prosser, “Privacy,” 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] +

^[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] +

^[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 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] +

^[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,” 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] +

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

^[45] +

^[45] John Schwartz, “Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of @@ -1974,7 +1976,7 @@ Information Online,” New York Times“Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,” Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at link #10. -

^[46] +

^[46] See Michael Falcone, “Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?” New York Times, 29 September 2003, C4. (“Not @@ -1984,15 +1986,15 @@ 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] +covering.”) +

^[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 @@ -2107,8 +2109,8 @@ 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 @@ -2142,9 +2144,9 @@ 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 @@ -2162,20 +2164,20 @@ 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 @@ -2192,7 +2194,7 @@ 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 @@ -2219,13 +2221,13 @@ 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. @@ -2241,7 +2243,7 @@ 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 @@ -2250,7 +2252,7 @@ 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 @@ -2266,39 +2268,39 @@ 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 @@ -2324,7 +2326,7 @@ 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 @@ -2336,7 +2338,7 @@ 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 @@ -2353,7 +2355,7 @@ 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. @@ -2361,7 +2363,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2374,7 +2376,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2397,7 +2399,7 @@ 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 @@ -2416,30 +2418,30 @@ 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, @@ -2449,7 +2451,7 @@ 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. @@ -2467,18 +2469,18 @@ 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 @@ -2491,48 +2493,48 @@ 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] @@ -2542,12 +2544,12 @@ 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 @@ -2559,38 +2561,38 @@ 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 @@ -2619,7 +2621,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2654,7 +2656,7 @@ 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. @@ -2663,7 +2665,7 @@ 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 @@ -2702,8 +2704,8 @@ 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, @@ -2721,8 +2723,8 @@ 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. +
@@ -2758,20 +2760,20 @@ 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 @@ -2782,10 +2784,10 @@ 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 @@ -2810,7 +2812,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2848,7 +2850,7 @@ 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 @@ -2867,7 +2869,7 @@ 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 @@ -2878,7 +2880,7 @@ 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 @@ -2903,17 +2905,17 @@ 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]
@@ -2946,7 +2948,7 @@ 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 @@ -2955,14 +2957,14 @@ 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 @@ -3029,7 +3031,7 @@ 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 @@ -3081,7 +3083,7 @@ 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 @@ -3111,20 +3113,20 @@ 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 @@ -3135,7 +3137,7 @@ 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 @@ -3147,7 +3149,7 @@ 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 @@ -3156,7 +3158,7 @@ request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this 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
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.
@@ -3184,7 +3186,7 @@ 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 @@ -3211,7 +3213,7 @@ 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 @@ -3225,7 +3227,7 @@ 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] +

^[70] See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), @@ -3233,7 +3235,7 @@ 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 @@ -3248,8 +3250,8 @@ 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: @@ -3257,13 +3259,13 @@ 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 @@ -3273,8 +3275,8 @@ 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 @@ -3286,7 +3288,7 @@ 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] @@ -3295,16 +3297,16 @@ 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 @@ -3318,11 +3320,11 @@ 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 @@ -3337,14 +3339,14 @@ 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] +
^[82] Jane Black, “Big Music's Broken Record,” BusinessWeek online, -13 February 2003, available at link #17. -
^[83] +13 February 2003, available at link #17. +
^[83] ibid. -
^[84] +
^[84] By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no @@ -3352,7 +3354,7 @@ 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 @@ -3363,7 +3365,7 @@ 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 @@ -3372,38 +3374,38 @@ 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 @@ -3415,13 +3417,13 @@ 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 @@ -3456,7 +3458,7 @@ 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 @@ -3466,7 +3468,7 @@ 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 @@ -3476,13 +3478,13 @@ 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 @@ -3492,7 +3494,7 @@ 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
+
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, @@ -3506,8 +3508,8 @@ overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V: 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 +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 @@ -3520,7 +3522,7 @@ 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 +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?
@@ -3532,7 +3534,7 @@ 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 @@ -3601,7 +3603,7 @@ 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 @@ -3630,7 +3632,7 @@ 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] +honest profession to which learning is indetted.”^[101]
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap, var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste @@ -3662,7 +3664,7 @@ 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 @@ -3681,27 +3683,27 @@ 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 +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.
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne -kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.^[104] +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 +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] +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 +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.
@@ -3715,7 +3717,7 @@ Thomson's poem “The Seasons.[108] +law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.^[108]
Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection @@ -3737,13 +3739,13 @@ 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. -
+
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 @@ -3780,8 +3782,8 @@ 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. - +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 @@ -3791,7 +3793,7 @@ Advertiser reported, “No priv 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] +literary property: bonfires and illuminations.”^[110]
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i motsatt retning. Morning Chronicle skrev: @@ -3801,7 +3803,7 @@ 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]
@@ -3827,7 +3829,7 @@ made by the few despite the wishes of the many. 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 @@ -3838,24 +3840,24 @@ 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] +
^[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] +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 @@ -3865,45 +3867,45 @@ 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] + +
^[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 Review 29 (1983): 1152. -
^[109] +
^[109] Ibid., 1156. -
^[110] +
^[110] Rose, 97. -
^[111] +
^[111] ibid. @@ -3921,7 +3923,7 @@ 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 @@ -3942,13 +3944,13 @@ for 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. +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 @@ -3977,7 +3979,7 @@ Men Else hadde ikke penger til 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 @@ -3997,7 +3999,7 @@ you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought -is “fair use.”^[112] Else's use +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 @@ -4060,7 +4062,7 @@ 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 @@ -4068,13 +4070,13 @@ lawyers don't permit recognition that it is ““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
+
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 @@ -4082,7 +4084,7 @@ 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 @@ -4095,21 +4097,21 @@ 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 @@ -4138,7 +4140,7 @@ 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 @@ -4150,7 +4152,7 @@ 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. @@ -4168,12 +4170,12 @@ 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 @@ -4212,7 +4214,7 @@ 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 @@ -4240,14 +4242,14 @@ 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?” -
+
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, @@ -4274,7 +4276,7 @@ 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 @@ -4338,13 +4340,13 @@ 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, @@ -4387,7 +4389,7 @@ 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 @@ -4439,7 +4441,7 @@ 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 @@ -4469,7 +4471,7 @@ 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, @@ -4504,7 +4506,7 @@ 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 @@ -4535,7 +4537,7 @@ 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 @@ -4603,7 +4605,7 @@ 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 @@ -4611,7 +4613,7 @@ 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 @@ -4619,7 +4621,7 @@ 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, @@ -4636,7 +4638,7 @@ 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 @@ -4646,8 +4648,8 @@ 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. +
@@ -4678,7 +4680,7 @@ 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 @@ -4702,7 +4704,7 @@ 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 @@ -4817,7 +4819,7 @@ 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 @@ -4880,7 +4882,7 @@ 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 @@ -4890,12 +4892,12 @@ 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 @@ -4961,14 +4963,14 @@ 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 @@ -4987,13 +4989,13 @@ 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 @@ -5029,16 +5031,16 @@ 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 @@ -5051,7 +5053,7 @@ 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 @@ -5075,7 +5077,7 @@ 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 @@ -5139,7 +5141,7 @@ 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 @@ -5164,7 +5166,7 @@ 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 @@ -5176,11 +5178,11 @@ 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 @@ -5240,7 +5242,7 @@ 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 @@ -5310,7 +5312,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5361,14 +5363,14 @@ 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 @@ -5385,7 +5387,7 @@ 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]
@@ -5403,7 +5405,7 @@ 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. @@ -5453,7 +5455,7 @@ 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 @@ -5524,7 +5526,7 @@ effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense when the vast majority of uses are unregulated. But when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not enough. -
+
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the business of making “trailer” advertisements for movies available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way @@ -5568,7 +5570,7 @@ 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 @@ -5613,16 +5615,16 @@ 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 +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 @@ -5640,7 +5642,7 @@ 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 @@ -5673,7 +5675,7 @@ button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer.
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen): -Aristoteles Politikk +Aristoteles Politikk
Figur 10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s “Politics”

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. @@ -5689,7 +5691,7 @@ 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 @@ -5714,7 +5716,7 @@ 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 @@ -5738,7 +5740,7 @@ 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”.

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 @@ -5768,7 +5770,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5814,7 +5816,7 @@ 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 @@ -5837,7 +5839,7 @@ 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. @@ -5882,7 +5884,7 @@ 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: @@ -5918,7 +5920,7 @@ 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 @@ -5936,7 +5938,7 @@ 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 @@ -5944,7 +5946,7 @@ 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 @@ -5959,7 +5961,7 @@ 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]
@@ -5968,7 +5970,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5990,8 +5992,8 @@ 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 @@ -6025,7 +6027,7 @@ 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 @@ -6084,12 +6086,12 @@ 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 @@ -6113,7 +6115,7 @@ 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 @@ -6123,7 +6125,7 @@ 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 @@ -6143,7 +6145,7 @@ 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 @@ -6154,7 +6156,7 @@ 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]
@@ -6174,13 +6176,13 @@ 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 @@ -6188,14 +6190,14 @@ 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 @@ -6206,16 +6208,16 @@ 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 @@ -6246,7 +6248,7 @@ 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 @@ -6279,7 +6281,7 @@ 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 @@ -6289,7 +6291,7 @@ 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
+
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 @@ -6352,7 +6354,7 @@ 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.
@@ -6413,7 +6415,7 @@ 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 @@ -6448,7 +6450,7 @@ 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, @@ -6456,7 +6458,7 @@ 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 @@ -6467,7 +6469,7 @@ 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 @@ -6478,7 +6480,7 @@ 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 @@ -6506,8 +6508,8 @@ 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 @@ -6516,26 +6518,26 @@ 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: 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 @@ -6551,7 +6553,7 @@ 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 @@ -6562,17 +6564,17 @@ 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 @@ -6581,19 +6583,19 @@ 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] +Affairs, July/August 2003, available at 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 @@ -6605,14 +6607,14 @@ 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 @@ -6620,17 +6622,17 @@ 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] +
^[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 @@ -6639,7 +6641,7 @@ 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 @@ -6652,41 +6654,41 @@ 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] +Monthly (September 2003): 89. +
^[146] Leonard Hill, “The Axis of Access,” remarks before Weidenbaum @@ -6694,7 +6696,7 @@ 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 @@ -6703,17 +6705,17 @@ 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] +
^[150] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The @@ -6726,7 +6728,7 @@ 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 @@ -6751,25 +6753,25 @@ 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] +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 @@ -6828,7 +6830,7 @@ 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 @@ -6863,7 +6865,7 @@ 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. - +
@@ -6888,9 +6890,9 @@ 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 @@ -6942,23 +6944,23 @@ 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 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, @@ -6986,8 +6988,8 @@ 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 @@ -7011,7 +7013,7 @@ 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 @@ -7074,13 +7076,13 @@ 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 @@ -7094,7 +7096,7 @@ 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.
@@ -7190,7 +7192,7 @@ 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 @@ -7205,7 +7207,7 @@ 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 @@ -7217,7 +7219,7 @@ 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 @@ -7272,11 +7274,11 @@ 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 @@ -7286,14 +7288,14 @@ 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 @@ -7359,13 +7361,13 @@ 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 @@ -7376,9 +7378,9 @@ 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 @@ -7391,7 +7393,7 @@ 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 @@ -7403,9 +7405,9 @@ 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.
@@ -7418,7 +7420,7 @@ 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 @@ -7468,11 +7470,11 @@ 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 @@ -7496,7 +7498,7 @@ 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 @@ -7566,7 +7568,7 @@ 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, @@ -7606,7 +7608,7 @@ 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 @@ -7625,7 +7627,7 @@ 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 @@ -7640,15 +7642,15 @@ 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 @@ -7664,7 +7666,7 @@ 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 @@ -7724,7 +7726,7 @@ 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 @@ -7793,10 +7795,10 @@ 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 @@ -7826,12 +7828,12 @@ 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.” @@ -7845,7 +7847,7 @@ 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 @@ -7856,7 +7858,7 @@ 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 @@ -7881,15 +7883,15 @@ 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 @@ -7898,15 +7900,15 @@ 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,” @@ -7916,30 +7918,30 @@ 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 @@ -7955,7 +7957,7 @@ 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 @@ -7968,16 +7970,16 @@ 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 @@ -7993,39 +7995,39 @@ 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 @@ -8040,12 +8042,12 @@ 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 @@ -8141,7 +8143,7 @@ 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 @@ -8150,7 +8152,7 @@ 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 @@ -8168,7 +8170,7 @@ 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 @@ -8205,7 +8207,7 @@ 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 @@ -8293,10 +8295,10 @@ 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 @@ -8328,7 +8330,7 @@ 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 @@ -8341,15 +8343,15 @@ 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 @@ -8387,10 +8389,10 @@ 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 @@ -8414,7 +8416,7 @@ 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]
@@ -8480,7 +8482,7 @@ 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 @@ -8490,7 +8492,7 @@ 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 @@ -8509,7 +8511,7 @@ 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. @@ -8541,7 +8543,7 @@ 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 @@ -8651,7 +8653,7 @@ 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 @@ -8712,7 +8714,7 @@ 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 @@ -8721,7 +8723,7 @@ 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 @@ -8782,7 +8784,7 @@ 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 @@ -8798,18 +8800,18 @@ 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 @@ -8829,7 +8831,7 @@ 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 @@ -8839,7 +8841,7 @@ 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 @@ -8858,13 +8860,13 @@ 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 @@ -8884,7 +8886,7 @@ 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 @@ -8893,7 +8895,7 @@ 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 @@ -8912,7 +8914,7 @@ 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 @@ -8978,18 +8980,18 @@ 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 @@ -9056,7 +9058,7 @@ 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 @@ -9169,7 +9171,7 @@ 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 @@ -9179,7 +9181,7 @@ 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 @@ -9231,7 +9233,7 @@ 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 @@ -9257,10 +9259,10 @@ 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 @@ -9277,7 +9279,7 @@ 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, @@ -9306,8 +9308,8 @@ 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 @@ -9316,7 +9318,7 @@ 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 @@ -9331,7 +9333,7 @@ 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 @@ -9341,32 +9343,32 @@ 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 @@ -9378,19 +9380,19 @@ 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 @@ -9398,7 +9400,7 @@ 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 @@ -9407,17 +9409,17 @@ 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 @@ -9431,7 +9433,7 @@ 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 @@ -9459,7 +9461,7 @@ 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 @@ -9478,11 +9480,11 @@ 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 @@ -9495,7 +9497,7 @@ 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 @@ -9557,7 +9559,7 @@ 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 @@ -9607,7 +9609,7 @@ 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 @@ -9619,7 +9621,7 @@ 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 @@ -9688,7 +9690,7 @@ 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?
@@ -9714,7 +9716,7 @@ 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 @@ -9728,7 +9730,7 @@ 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 @@ -9767,7 +9769,7 @@ 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]
@@ -9800,12 +9802,12 @@ 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 @@ -9817,7 +9819,7 @@ 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 @@ -9844,7 +9846,7 @@ 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 @@ -9908,7 +9910,7 @@ 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 @@ -9932,10 +9934,10 @@ 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 @@ -9951,8 +9953,8 @@ 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 @@ -9961,7 +9963,7 @@ 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 @@ -10012,8 +10014,8 @@ 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 @@ -10036,8 +10038,8 @@ 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 @@ -10085,7 +10087,7 @@ 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 @@ -10107,9 +10109,9 @@ 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 @@ -10168,7 +10170,7 @@ 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 @@ -10177,7 +10179,7 @@ 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 @@ -10214,11 +10216,11 @@ 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 @@ -10227,14 +10229,14 @@ 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 @@ -10248,7 +10250,7 @@ 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), @@ -10256,12 +10258,12 @@ 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 @@ -10272,13 +10274,13 @@ 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] @@ -10295,7 +10297,7 @@ 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, @@ -10306,10 +10308,10 @@ 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 @@ -10326,15 +10328,15 @@ 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, @@ -10348,23 +10350,23 @@ 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 @@ -10461,7 +10463,7 @@ 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 @@ -10469,7 +10471,7 @@ 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 @@ -10483,7 +10485,7 @@ 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 @@ -10495,8 +10497,8 @@ 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 @@ -10532,7 +10534,7 @@ 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 @@ -10605,7 +10607,7 @@ 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 @@ -10613,7 +10615,7 @@ 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.
@@ -10669,7 +10671,7 @@ 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 @@ -10709,8 +10711,8 @@ 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 @@ -10723,9 +10725,9 @@ 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 @@ -10758,7 +10760,7 @@ 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 @@ -10803,7 +10805,7 @@ 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.
@@ -10879,7 +10881,7 @@ 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 @@ -10930,7 +10932,7 @@ 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 @@ -10966,10 +10968,10 @@ 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. - +
~~@@ -11013,15 +11015,15 @@ 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 @@ -11035,7 +11037,7 @@ 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 @@ -11056,7 +11058,7 @@ 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 @@ -11172,7 +11174,7 @@ 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]
~~@@ -11272,7 +11274,7 @@ 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 @@ -11293,7 +11295,7 @@ 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 @@ -11304,7 +11306,7 @@ 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 @@ -11408,7 +11410,7 @@ 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 @@ -11418,7 +11420,7 @@ 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.
@@ -11469,7 +11471,7 @@ 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] @@ -11480,54 +11482,54 @@ 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 @@ -11557,14 +11559,14 @@ 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 @@ -11579,7 +11581,7 @@ 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 @@ -11595,7 +11597,7 @@ 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 @@ -11646,4 +11648,4 @@ 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~~
~~Africa, medications for HIV patients in, Konklusjon, Konklusjon~~
~~Agee, Michael, 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 7219bc5..0a0d155 100644 Binary files a/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf and b/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf differ diff --git a/progress.png b/progress.png index e52f394..ddda0c3 100644 Binary files a/progress.png and b/progress.png differ diff --git a/stats.txt b/stats.txt index f7ebbb2..5a90e12 100644 --- a/stats.txt +++ b/stats.txt @@ -172,3 +172,5 @@ 2012-08-10T2011 684 oversatte meldinger, 940 antatte oversettelser, 239 uoversatte meldinger. 2012-08-10T2027 696 oversatte meldinger, 928 antatte oversettelser, 239 uoversatte meldinger. 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.

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