Fri kultur

-Cartoon in Figur 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.” by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune +Cartoon in Figure 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.” by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

-Diagram in Figur 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.” courtesy of the office of FCC +Diagram in Figure 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.” courtesy of the office of FCC Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ 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 @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i 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 "fri" som i +programvarebevegelsen^[2]), men "fri" som i "talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og "frie valg". En fri kultur støtter og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere. Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har definert det tjuende 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 @@ -164,13 +164,13 @@ Safire beskrev 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 @@ -213,12 +213,12 @@ 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. -

Kapittel 0. Introduksjon

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

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 enn luft kunne fly. Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ 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 @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ eiendom. Flyene r 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 @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ 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."

@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ sider eller kun noen f 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 @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ 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 @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ et glass som ble fylt opp. … Et papir ble kr det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. … 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] +noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".^[6]

Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye @@ -347,16 +347,16 @@ 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. +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 @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ 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 @@ -380,8 +380,8 @@ 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 @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ 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 @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ og solgt eller produsert for mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle 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. +Joel Barlow sin poesi, 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 @@ -462,13 +462,13 @@ musikk, laging av kassetter—ble ikke 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 @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ hovedsak "piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "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 +(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "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. @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ 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. @@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ 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 livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ inn i denne eiendomsretten. Det er s de nye teknologiene til internettet "tar seg til rette" mot legitime 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 @@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ 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 @@ -660,10 +660,10 @@ 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 meg i Keith @@ -671,21 +671,21 @@ Aokis flotte stykke, "(intellectual) Property and 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] +(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," første +

^[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 @@ -693,18 +693,18 @@ interesse n å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes 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] +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. +

^[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. -

Del I. "Piratvirksomhet"

+Law Journal 106 (1996): 283. +

Part I. “Piratvirksomhet”

Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet, "piratvirksomhet", har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet av @@ -713,8 +713,8 @@ utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til

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. Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre @@ -750,15 +750,15 @@ 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 rettigheten til denne +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 "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en +jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes 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 @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ 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 @@ -799,32 +799,32 @@ teknologi kunne sluppet l 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] Dessverre ser vi også en +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] +2002. +

^[18] I The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot @@ -832,8 +832,8 @@ 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. -

Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne

+vanskeligere. +

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. I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt @@ -862,11 +862,11 @@ 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." +i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like 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 @@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ popul Steamboat Bill, Jr. kom før Disneys tegnefilm Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat -Bill,^[20] og begge bygger på en felles sang +Bill,^[20] og begge bygger på en felles sang som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i The Jazz Singer at vi får Steamboat Willie. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat @@ -899,7 +899,7 @@ Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie f

Denne "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien. Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt -ham.^[21] Det samme gjorde mange andre. +ham.^[21] Det samme gjorde mange andre. Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger—små variasjoner over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ til noe annet. fersk. Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske levende. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var -opphavsrettsbeskyttet.^[22] Det betyr at i +opphavsrettsbeskyttet.^[22] Det betyr at i tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på @@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ amerikansk tegneseriers f Japan i dag. … Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere hverandre. … Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne—ved å se i tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere dem" -og bygge basert på dem.^[23] +og bygge basert på dem.^[23]

Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi @@ -1057,14 +1057,14 @@ f rekke regler, og du må følge dem". Det er ting som Supermann "ikke kan" gjøre. "For en som lager tegneserier er det frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år gamle." -

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

Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner, er at mekanismen som produserer denne "hold hendene borte"-responsen ikke er @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom f Vi lever i en verden som feirer "eiendom". Jeg er en av de som feierer. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller "immateriell -eiendom".^[25] Et stort og variert samfunn +eiendom".^[25] Et stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.

@@ -1173,12 +1173,12 @@ tilknyttet et studio eller ikke? Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på. Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri. -

^[19] +

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

^[20] +

^[20] Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie, @@ -1189,12 +1189,12 @@ musikken til fem sanger i Steamboat Willie: "Joyful Hurry No. 1" (Baron), og "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). En sjette sang, "The Turkey in the Straw," var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til forfatteren. -

^[21] +

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

^[22] +

^[22] Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en @@ -1206,12 +1206,12 @@ fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet denne boka, tilgjengelig fra link #6. -

^[23] +

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

^[24] +

^[24] Se Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All @@ -1222,7 +1222,7 @@ opphavsrettsbrudd. stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma." -

^[25] +

^[25] Begrepet immateriell eiendom er av relativ ny opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and @@ -1231,15 +1231,15 @@ ogs Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med "eiendoms"-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse rettighetene er -svært forskjellige. -

Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

+svært forskjellige. +

2. Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”

I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle "fotografier". Rimelig nok ble de kalt "daguerreotyper". Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør, ved å holde konkurransen ned -slik at prisene var høye.) +slik at prisene var høye.)
Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å @@ -1248,7 +1248,7 @@ lage "negativer". Men da negativene var av glass, og m forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess -som var innenfor rekkevidden til de fleste amatører. +som var innenfor rekkevidden til de fleste amatører.
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke @@ -1262,8 +1262,8 @@ kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag -dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."^[26] Som han beskrev det i The Kodak -Primer: +dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."^[26] Som han beskrev det i The Kodak +Primer:
Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan @@ -1272,7 +1272,7 @@ 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 @@ -1282,9 +1282,9 @@ 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] +
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, "For f tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie og dens aktiviteter. … For første gang i historien fantes det en autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker -laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet."^[30] +laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet."^[30]
På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis @@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ 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]
Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent @@ -1322,12 +1322,12 @@ fotografert—r tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i. -
+
På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være -annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.^[32]) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting. +annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.^[32]) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting. På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra Steamboat Bill, Jr. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden. @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ 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])
Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da @@ -1378,12 +1378,12 @@ kritisere den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg. Hvert besøker disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media. Ved å gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de. -
+
Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, "for fem år siden kostet et godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du få -profesjonell kvalitet for $595."^[34] Disse +profesjonell kvalitet for $595."^[34] Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor unger kan lære mer og mer av @@ -1394,7 +1394,7 @@ det l Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, "er evnen til … å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de er konstruert, hvordan de -blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem". +blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem".
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på "skrivefør". For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og skrive. "Skriveføre folk kjenner ting som @@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@ Faulkner, Hemingway og
Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000 -reklameinnslag,^[35] så er det mer og mer +reklameinnslag,^[35] så er det mer og mer viktig å forstå "gramatikken" til media. For på samme måte som det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så lærer unger å @@ -1425,13 +1425,13 @@ 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. -
+
Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om "plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og -tekstur".^[36] Men etter hvert som +tekstur".^[36] Men etter hvert som datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir "spillt" i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre teknikker nødvendig. @@ -1439,8 +1439,8 @@ Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret fortellerstemmen til science fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, -selv for en enormt vellykket forfatter.^[37] -
+selv for en enormt vellykket forfatter.^[37] +
Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager filmer. Som Daley skriver, "folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra å se @@ -1469,9 +1469,9 @@ forst verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å "gi folket myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller -uttrykke".^[38] Det gir studenter mulighet -"til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".^[39] -
+uttrykke".^[38] Det gir studenter mulighet +"til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".^[39] +
Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for @@ -1560,7 +1560,7 @@ over skjermen. Det var en formel for intervjuer. Det var "balanse" og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik vi i stadig større grad forventer det, "nyheter som underholdning", selv om underholdningen er en tragedie. -
+
Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om "tragedien 11. september", kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av fortellinger om de samme @@ -1630,11 +1630,11 @@ at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge frem. De diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var "riktig" resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om "riktig"resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen -skulle avsluttes.^[40] +skulle avsluttes.^[40]
Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en -innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.^[41] +innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.^[41] Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen. Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for å gjennomføre "demokratisk diskusjon". @@ -1644,7 +1644,7 @@ 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.
@@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ 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.
En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg "sa feil" på en @@ -1677,8 +1677,8 @@ Det skjedde. Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsf Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og flere tilfeller av tilsvarende "feiluttalelser" opp. Så dukket historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å trekke seg som -leder for senatets flertall.^[43] - +leder for senatets flertall.^[43] +
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler. @@ -1703,12 +1703,12 @@ interessekonflikten" ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer meg. "En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt, eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan rydde den av veien." -
+
Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at de gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne -ansatte.^[44] De trenger også å opprettholde +ansatte.^[44] De trenger også å opprettholde en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba @@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ betydningen uerfaren, men i betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å komme med deres rapport. Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg -til internettet for å gjenfortelle hva de hadde sett.^[45] Og det får lesere til å lese på tvers av en rekke +til internettet for å gjenfortelle hva de hadde sett.^[45] Og det får lesere til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og "triangulere", som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer, "kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er fjernet"— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ Winer er optimistisk n blogger. "Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet", spår Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører. Det er ikke klart at "journalismen" er glad for dette—noen journalister har blitt -bedt om å kutte ut sin blogging.^[46] Men +bedt om å kutte ut sin blogging.^[46] Men det er klart at vi fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. "Mye av det vi gjør nå er oppvarmingsøvelser", fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i @@ -1751,7 +1751,7 @@ mer sjeldent for et menneske Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det være noe ekstraordært å rapportere. -
+
John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er "menneskelig læring og … å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon". @@ -1803,7 +1803,7 @@ mer enn tekst. "Nettet … si hvis du er musikalsk, 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 @@ -1817,9 +1817,9 @@ med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig st 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 +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] +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.
@@ -1832,37 +1832,37 @@ for, "bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig 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 teknologien.
"Ikke måten å drive en kultur på", sa Brewster Kahle, som vi møtte i -kapittel 9, +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 @@ -1870,11 +1870,11 @@ 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 og Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," -Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. -
^[33] +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. +
^[33] Se Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," Law and @@ -1883,68 +1883,68 @@ Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, 398–407; White mot Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). -
^[34] +
^[34] H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra 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. mai 1997, B6. -
^[36] +
^[36] Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002. - -
^[37] + +
^[37] Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online, 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #8; "Timeline," 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #9. -
^[38] +
^[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 og James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2) (2002): 129. -
^[42] +
^[42] Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192. -
^[43] +
^[43] Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5. -
^[44] +
^[44] Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003. -
^[45] +
^[45] John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information Online," New York Times, 2 februar 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #10. -
^[46] +
^[46] Se Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?" New York Times, 29. september 2003, C4. ("Ikke alle @@ -1954,15 +1954,15 @@ sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en Houston Chronicle-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av -temaene og folkene som han dekket") -
^[47] +temaene og folkene som han dekket") +
^[47] Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, "Technological Access Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship," Communications of the Association for Computer Machinery 43 (2000): 9. -
Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger
+

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 @@ -2076,8 +2076,8 @@ som RIAA p 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 @@ -2111,9 +2111,9 @@ 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 @@ -2131,49 +2131,52 @@ 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 Punishment," Wall Street Journal, 10. september 2003, A24. -
Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"
-If "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their -permission—if "if value, then right" is true—then the history of -the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big -media" today—film, records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a -kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's -pirates join this generation's country club—until now. -
4.1. Film
- -The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.^[51] Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast -to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that -patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls -were exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents -Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative property—patents. -Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave -him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded. -
-As one commentator tells one part of the story, +
4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”
+Hvis "piratvirksomhet" betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten +deres tillatelse—hvis "hvis verdi, så rettighet" er sant—da er +historien om innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste +viktige sektor av "store medier" i dag—film, plager, radio og +kabel-TV—kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den +konsekvente fortellingen 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 +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 monopol-"kartell", The +Motion Pictures Patents company, og var basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative +eierrettigheter—patenter. Edison stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene +som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga ham, og MPPC var seriøst med +kontrollen de krevde. +
+Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
-A January 1909 deadline was set for all companies to comply with the -license. By February, unlicensed outlaws, who referred to themselves as -independents protested the trust and carried on business without submitting -to the Edison monopoly. In the summer of 1909 the independent movement was -in full-swing, with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and -imported film stock to create their own underground market. +En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar +med lisensen. Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som +refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin +forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol. Sommeren 1909 +var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere +som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget +undergrunnsmarked.
With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by @@ -2183,13 +2186,13 @@ 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 +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. @@ -2201,11 +2204,11 @@ patentinnehaveren et i sannhet "begrenset" monopol (kun sytten tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's kreative rettigheter. -
4.2. Innspilt musikk
+
4.2. Innspilt musikk
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. -
+
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and @@ -2213,7 +2216,7 @@ the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit "Happy Mose," the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly. -
+
But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making @@ -2228,35 +2231,37 @@ it wasn't clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything. -
-The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this capacity to -pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge put it, +
+Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til +å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte +det,
-Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. A -publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights -it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls -and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher -without any regard for [their] rights.^[54] +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]
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 "music publishing +composers,"^[55] and the "music publishing industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one -pirate."^[56] As John Philip Sousa put it, +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] +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 innovators +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] +or artistic, except as defined by statute."^[59]
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer @@ -2281,7 +2286,7 @@ 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 @@ -2293,7 +2298,7 @@ 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 @@ -2310,15 +2315,15 @@ 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. -
4.3. Radio
-Radio was also born of piracy. +
4.3. Radio
+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 +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. @@ -2332,7 +2337,7 @@ 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. +as it pays the composer of the music for his work.
@@ -2354,16 +2359,16 @@ Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio station thus gets to pirate the value of Madonna's work without paying her anything. -
+
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for nothing. -
4.4. Kabel-TV
+
4.4. Kabel-TV
-Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy. +Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable @@ -2373,28 +2378,28 @@ 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] +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 broadcaster put it, +interest dictate that you use somebody else's 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] +Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"^[67]
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister Edwin Zimmerman sa det, @@ -2404,7 +2409,7 @@ 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. @@ -2421,18 +2426,18 @@ a "piracy" of the value created 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 +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 @@ -2443,48 +2448,48 @@ the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, "From Edison 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] +Law and Economics, Working Paper 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 (statement of -Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association). -
^[56] +To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra +Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association). +
^[56] -To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of -Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association). -
^[57] +To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra +Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association). +
^[57] -To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of -John Philip Sousa, composer). -
^[58] +To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra +John Philip Sousa, komponist). +
^[58] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84 -(statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music Perforating +(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] @@ -2494,12 +2499,12 @@ 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 Broadcast" @@ -2511,38 +2516,38 @@ 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] + +
^[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 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman, -acting assistant attorney general). -
^[69] +Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman, +fungerende assisterende justisministeren). +
^[69] See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The @@ -2550,7 +2555,7 @@ Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free Information, available at link #13. "The threat of piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or compensation—has grown with the Internet." -

Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"

5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”

There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the @@ -2566,12 +2571,12 @@ of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past. -

5.1. Piracy I

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.

@@ -2606,7 +2611,7 @@ 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. @@ -2615,7 +2620,7 @@ 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 @@ -2652,8 +2657,8 @@ people will buy software rather 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. - +Microsoft. Without 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, @@ -2671,8 +2676,8 @@ 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. +

@@ -2704,10 +2709,10 @@ one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.

These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive. -

5.2. Piracy 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 +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. @@ -2715,13 +2720,13 @@ 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 @@ -2732,10 +2737,10 @@ 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 @@ -2760,7 +2765,7 @@ 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.

@@ -2798,7 +2803,7 @@ 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 @@ -2816,7 +2821,7 @@ 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 that every +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 the answer. @@ -2826,7 +2831,7 @@ 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] +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 @@ -2851,17 +2856,17 @@ 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 +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]

@@ -2894,7 +2899,7 @@ 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 @@ -2903,14 +2908,14 @@ 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 @@ -2955,7 +2960,7 @@ otherwise would be unavailable?"
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good. And -like the piracy I described in chapter 4, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of +like the piracy I described in chapter 4, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be asking about file sharing @@ -2974,7 +2979,7 @@ 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 @@ -3026,7 +3031,7 @@ 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 @@ -3055,21 +3060,21 @@ 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] +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 +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 +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] +thereby profit 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 @@ -3079,7 +3084,7 @@ for the copyright infringement made possible by its 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] +American film industry)—was an illegal technology.^[91]
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in @@ -3091,7 +3096,7 @@ 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 @@ -3099,7 +3104,7 @@ request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this "taking" notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:

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

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

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

@@ -3126,7 +3131,7 @@ 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] Instead, the +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 been done @@ -3152,7 +3157,7 @@ of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally 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 begins to talk about "balance," the +York Times, "could be delayed in the 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 content," the warriors insist, "is our property. Why @@ -3163,7 +3168,7 @@ whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"

"Det er vår eiendom," insisterer krigerne. "og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen eiendom er beskyttet." -

^[70] +

^[70] See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), @@ -3171,7 +3176,7 @@ 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 @@ -3186,8 +3191,8 @@ 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: @@ -3195,13 +3200,13 @@ Amacom, 2002), 144–90. "In some instances … the impact of 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 @@ -3211,8 +3216,8 @@ 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 Nightmare," @@ -3223,7 +3228,7 @@ Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures New Financing," Wake-Up Call," Economist, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London) Times, 26 July 2002, 18. -

^[76] +

^[76] @@ -3232,16 +3237,16 @@ 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 @@ -3254,11 +3259,11 @@ conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 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] +Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145–56.

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

^[81] +

^[81] See Recording Industry Association of America, 2002 Yearend @@ -3273,15 +3278,15 @@ 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. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link -#17. -

^[83] +#17. +

^[83] ibid. -

^[84] +

^[84] By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no @@ -3289,7 +3294,7 @@ 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 @@ -3301,7 +3306,7 @@ available at link #20. -

^[86] +

^[86] See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35 @@ -3310,38 +3315,38 @@ 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 @@ -3353,18 +3358,18 @@ 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] +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 Echoes Past Efforts," New York Times, 22 September 2003, C3. -

^[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 @@ -3428,7 +3433,7 @@ 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
+

@@ -3747,7 +3752,7 @@ av noen f 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 er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære @@ -3757,24 +3762,24 @@ han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som enn kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller," American Scholar 61:3 (1992): 424-31. -
^[99] +
^[99] Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52. -
^[100] +
^[100] Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en "opphavsrettslov." Se 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 @@ -3784,49 +3789,49 @@ 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 en fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se 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. -
Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
+

^[112] +

^[112] Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er "fair use", og @@ -3985,13 +3990,13 @@ hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, s F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred " (utkast arkivert hos forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003. -

Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere

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 you $600 @@ -4065,7 +4070,7 @@ 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. @@ -4083,12 +4088,12 @@ 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 Alben, +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 resources, and @@ -4126,7 +4131,7 @@ and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, "Oh, 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 @@ -4154,14 +4159,14 @@ 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. -

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

For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course, @@ -4188,7 +4193,7 @@ 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 @@ -4251,19 +4256,19 @@ 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] +this chapter evinces. +

^[114] U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition, available at link #22. -

Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere

9. Kapittel ni: Samlere

In April 1996, millions of "bots"—computer codes designed to "spider," or automatically search the Internet and copy content—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information @@ -4300,7 +4305,7 @@ 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 @@ -4351,7 +4356,7 @@ content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a very low fee. "But other than that, [television] is almost 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 @@ -4381,7 +4386,7 @@ 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] +company.^[116]
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts, @@ -4415,7 +4420,7 @@ 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. +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 @@ -4446,7 +4451,7 @@ 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 @@ -4513,7 +4518,7 @@ these "archives," as warm as the idea of a "library" might seem, the "content" that is collected in these digital spaces is also someone's "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 @@ -4521,7 +4526,7 @@ 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 the @@ -4529,7 +4534,7 @@ 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, Bar @@ -4538,14 +4543,14 @@ Tribune, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks," Boston College Law Review 44 (2003): 593 n. 51. -
Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
+
10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”
Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's 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 @@ -4555,8 +4560,8 @@ 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. +
@@ -4587,7 +4592,7 @@ 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 @@ -4610,7 +4615,7 @@ of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that 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, nor should it be, that "creative +sense that lawyers are trained to 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 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a @@ -4708,7 +4713,7 @@ Cyberspace, I used a simple model to capture this more general perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram: -

Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken +

Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation.

At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case @@ -4721,7 +4726,7 @@ 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 @@ -4783,7 +4788,7 @@ 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 @@ -4793,20 +4798,20 @@ 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.

+
Figure 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] -
10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
+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 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes sense.
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet: -
Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.

+
Figure 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.

There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law @@ -4833,7 +4838,7 @@ when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that results. -
Figur 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.

+
Figure 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.

Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" prepared by the Commerce Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this mix of @@ -4864,14 +4869,14 @@ 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 @@ -4890,13 +4895,13 @@ 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 @@ -4932,16 +4937,16 @@ 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 @@ -4954,7 +4959,7 @@ 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 some of the @@ -4978,7 +4983,7 @@ 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 aim to @@ -4999,7 +5004,7 @@ of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in -chapter 6, the +chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed @@ -5030,18 +5035,18 @@ since they first struck its design. Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here: -
Figur 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.

+
Figure 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.

Vi kommer til å ende opp her: -
Figur 10.6. "Opphavsrett" i dag.

+
Figure 10.6. "Opphavsrett" i dag.

La meg forklare hvordan. -
10.3. Loven: Varighet
+
10.3. Loven: Varighet
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 @@ -5066,7 +5071,7 @@ 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 @@ -5078,11 +5083,11 @@ 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 @@ -5142,8 +5147,8 @@ 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] -
10.4. Loven: Virkeområde
+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 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the changes if we're @@ -5212,7 +5217,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5263,14 +5268,14 @@ 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 @@ -5283,11 +5288,11 @@ These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights originally granted. -
10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
+
10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
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]
@@ -5305,14 +5310,14 @@ be the trigger for copyright law. 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.
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty circle. -
Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.

+
Figure 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.

Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all @@ -5325,7 +5330,7 @@ of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright law, because those acts do not make a copy. -
Figur 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.

+
Figure 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.

Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at @@ -5335,7 +5340,7 @@ diagram on next page).
Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som "rimelig bruk". -
Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a +
Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.

These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You @@ -5345,7 +5350,7 @@ would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right over such "fair uses" for public policy (and possibly First Amendment) reasons. -
Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".

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

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

@@ -5354,7 +5359,7 @@ sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
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 @@ -5502,7 +5507,7 @@ copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some contexts it is a recipe for disaster. -
10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt
+
10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt
The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright @@ -5513,16 +5518,16 @@ 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]
Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene "var brødre lenge før dere var -det".^[137] Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet +det".^[137] Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet Brothers, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på å forsøke å kontrollere Casablanca, så ville Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over Brothers. @@ -5539,7 +5544,7 @@ 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 @@ -5558,10 +5563,10 @@ Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book domain. Consider Middlemarch first. If you click on my e-book copy of Middlemarch, you'll see a fancy cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions. -
Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.

+
Figure 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.

If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant with this book. -
Figur 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.

+
Figure 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.

According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard @@ -5572,14 +5577,14 @@ button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer.
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen): -Aristoteles Politikk -
Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"

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

According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book. -
Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".

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

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

+
Figure 10.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".

Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne boken!
@@ -5587,7 +5592,7 @@ Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls "permissions"— as if the publisher has the power to 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 +is no such copyright 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 @@ -5613,7 +5618,7 @@ 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. - +
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as copyright code. The @@ -5637,8 +5642,8 @@ relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the Adobe site was a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report: - -
Figur 10.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".

+ +
Figure 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 "permissions" indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"! @@ -5666,7 +5671,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5712,7 +5717,7 @@ 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 @@ -5735,7 +5740,7 @@ 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. @@ -5780,7 +5785,7 @@ 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: @@ -5816,7 +5821,7 @@ 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 @@ -5834,7 +5839,7 @@ 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 @@ -5842,7 +5847,7 @@ 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. - +
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the "Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's @@ -5856,7 +5861,7 @@ others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been "You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions." 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] +way, is important.^[140]
@@ -5865,7 +5870,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5881,14 +5886,14 @@ A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses. -
Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.

+
Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.

The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: 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 @@ -5922,7 +5927,7 @@ 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 @@ -5945,7 +5950,7 @@ balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That is, in effect, what is happening here. -
10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon
+
10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon
So copyright's duration has increased dramatically—tripled in the past thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well—from @@ -5980,12 +5985,12 @@ 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 labels of Universal Music Group, +companies control 85 percent of our media 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 +percent of the U.S. music market.^[143] The "five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable -subscribers nationwide."^[144] - +subscribers nationwide."^[144] +
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the @@ -6009,7 +6014,7 @@ 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 @@ -6019,13 +6024,13 @@ 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 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a thousand words could do: -
Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.

+
Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.

Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva @@ -6039,7 +6044,7 @@ 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 @@ -6050,7 +6055,7 @@ 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]
@@ -6069,12 +6074,12 @@ independent television studios remained. "In 1992, only 15 percent of 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 prime time television was +independently of conglomerate control, last year there was 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] -
+hours per week produced by independent 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 @@ -6082,14 +6087,14 @@ 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 @@ -6100,15 +6105,15 @@ 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 don't, but should not, +would find it rational to ignore new cultural 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. +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 @@ -6172,7 +6177,7 @@ 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 @@ -6182,7 +6187,7 @@ 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 sane sort who is @@ -6245,7 +6250,7 @@ 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.
@@ -6296,8 +6301,8 @@ I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying. But I also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in -chapters 7 and -8, one might +chapters 7 and +8, one might well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if derivative rights were more sharply restricted. @@ -6305,7 +6310,7 @@ derivative rights were more sharply restricted. 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 the important need to +historically, this property right (as with all property 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 tradition, the "copyright" @@ -6340,7 +6345,7 @@ 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, @@ -6348,7 +6353,7 @@ 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 bundle of @@ -6358,7 +6363,7 @@ right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of "property" to "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 @@ -6369,7 +6374,7 @@ 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 any @@ -6397,8 +6402,8 @@ 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] +liberty that each of these groups might face. +
^[122] See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?" @@ -6406,26 +6411,26 @@ BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at link #24. -
^[123] +
^[123] Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71. -
^[124] +
^[124] Se for eksempel James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?" Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87. -
^[125] +
^[125] William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), vol. 1, 485–86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme Law of the Land,' the perpetual rights which authors had, or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law" (emphasis -added). -
^[126] +added). +
^[126] Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to @@ -6441,7 +6446,7 @@ 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 @@ -6452,17 +6457,17 @@ 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 Creation of @@ -6470,19 +6475,19 @@ American Literature," 29 New York University 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, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. -
^[132] +Affairs, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. +
^[132] Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the First Amendment) between mere "copies" and derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality," Yale Law Journal 112 (2002): 1–60 (see -especially pp. 53–59). -
^[133] +especially pp. 53–59). +
^[133] This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly @@ -6493,14 +6498,14 @@ certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a "copy"; 17 United S Code, section 112(a). But the 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 different, but rather @@ -6508,16 +6513,16 @@ 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] Se 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 @@ -6526,7 +6531,7 @@ 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 I. Koerner, "Play @@ -6539,47 +6544,47 @@ Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns," Billboard, May Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA Legal Case," available at link -#27. -
^[140] +#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] +(September 2003): 89. +
^[146] Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum, "Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," 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 @@ -6588,18 +6593,18 @@ sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at link #30. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003. -
^[148] +
^[148] ibid. -
^[149] +
^[149] "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift tilgjengelig fra link #31. -
^[150] +
^[150] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The @@ -6612,7 +6617,7 @@ 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 @@ -6636,24 +6641,24 @@ the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad," SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at link #32. The ground was that -the criticism was "too controversial." - -
^[152] +the criticism was "too controversial." + +
^[152] Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. - -
^[153] + +
^[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). -
Del III. Nøtter
Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera
+W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980). +

^[154] +

^[154] H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). Se H. G. Wells, The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). -
^[155] +
^[155] For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright @@ -6862,8 +6867,8 @@ at link #35< example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins, "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 @@ -6871,7 +6876,7 @@ Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter, vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available -in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.
Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader
+in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.

^[157] +

^[157] Se Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, "MCI Wins U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7. juli 2003), tilgjengelig fra link -#37. -

^[158] +#37. +

^[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 Back,' Say Tort Reformers," amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at link #38, and "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] +continued to urge tort reform in recent months. +

^[159] @@ -7773,7 +7778,7 @@ Se Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," Wired, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #40. For en oversikt over utstillingen, se link #41. -

^[160] +

^[160] See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," Los @@ -7783,31 +7788,31 @@ Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized," 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. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via link #43. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad -Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. -

^[162] +Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. +

^[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 @@ -7823,7 +7828,7 @@ 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 @@ -7836,16 +7841,16 @@ 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] +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 @@ -7861,37 +7866,37 @@ 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] +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 Mother in @@ -7905,12 +7910,12 @@ Today, 15 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," 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 Penitent," @@ -7929,7 +7934,7 @@ This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing," San Francisco Chronicle, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid, Letters Are Weapons at Universities," USA Today, 26 September 2000, 3D. -

Part IV. Maktfordeling

Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med @@ -7972,7 +7977,7 @@ min falitt. I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, s langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for å lykkes. -

Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred

13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred

In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in @@ -8005,7 +8010,7 @@ 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 @@ -8014,12 +8019,12 @@ 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] +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 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public -library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter 10, in 1998, for the +library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter 10, in 1998, for the eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing copyrights—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no @@ -8031,7 +8036,7 @@ 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] +Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."^[180]
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through @@ -8066,7 +8071,7 @@ requirement that terms be "limited" will have no practical 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. +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 @@ -8151,11 +8156,11 @@ 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 over $1.5 million +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 +campaign contributions.^[182] Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in -the cycle.^[183] +the cycle.^[183]
Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not @@ -8187,7 +8192,7 @@ 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 @@ -8200,16 +8205,16 @@ 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 +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 point" to @@ -8247,10 +8252,10 @@ 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 our +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 @@ -8274,7 +8279,7 @@ 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]
@@ -8339,7 +8344,7 @@ 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 @@ -8348,7 +8353,7 @@ Dog, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made 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] +videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent 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 @@ -8367,7 +8372,7 @@ 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. @@ -8506,7 +8511,7 @@ 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 @@ -8566,7 +8571,7 @@ 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 @@ -8575,7 +8580,7 @@ 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. -
+
Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli @@ -8634,7 +8639,7 @@ general public seem to get bogged down?" The answer, as the 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 @@ -8650,18 +8655,18 @@ 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 @@ -8681,7 +8686,7 @@ 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 @@ -8691,7 +8696,7 @@ 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 historians or @@ -8709,13 +8714,13 @@ 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 +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 +Americans in the 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. +wanted this law to 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 @@ -8735,7 +8740,7 @@ 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 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice @@ -8744,7 +8749,7 @@ 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 @@ -8763,7 +8768,7 @@ 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 @@ -8829,18 +8834,18 @@ 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 @@ -8907,7 +8912,7 @@ 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. -

^[179] +

^[179] There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but @@ -9179,7 +9184,7 @@ 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 protection to @@ -9189,33 +9194,33 @@ 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. oktober 1998, 22. -

^[182] +

^[182] Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age," tilgjengelig fra link #49. -

^[183] +

^[183] Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars," Congressional Quarterly This Week, 8. august 1990, tilgjengelig fra 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 @@ -9226,19 +9231,19 @@ limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the limitation to "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 Law," @@ -9246,7 +9251,7 @@ See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law," "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 @@ -9255,23 +9260,23 @@ 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, tilgjengelig fra 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 Joins the Fray," New York Times, 28 March 1998, B7. -

Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II

^[194] +

^[194] Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright @@ -9593,7 +9598,7 @@ Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul Goldstein, International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and Materials (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), -153–54.

^[195] +

^[195] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London, 2002), @@ -10094,12 +10099,12 @@ tilgjengelig fra

^[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 @@ -10110,13 +10115,13 @@ 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] @@ -10132,7 +10137,7 @@ 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, tilgjengelig fra link #59; William New, "Global @@ -10142,10 +10147,10 @@ Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra "U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," National Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #61. -

^[201] +

^[201] Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet. -

^[202] +

^[202] Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer @@ -10162,15 +10167,15 @@ tilgjengelig fra The Commercial Software Model, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra link #63. -

^[203] +

^[203] Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra 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, september 2003, @@ -10184,29 +10189,29 @@ 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, tilgjengelig fra link #67. -

^[206] +

^[206] Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady," mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #68. -

^[207] +

^[207] Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan Songs," Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #69. -

^[208] +

^[208] "BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," pressemelding fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #70. -

^[209] +

^[209] "Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #71. -

Kapittel 16. Etterord

16. Etterord

@@ -10231,7 +10236,7 @@ mener betyr noe. Ikke s imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en fri kultur. -

16.1. Oss, nå

Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes—as a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is @@ -10271,7 +10276,7 @@ rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights reserved"— and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take for granted before. -

16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler

If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives @@ -10282,7 +10287,7 @@ your browsing habits was assured.

Hva gjorde at det var sikret?

-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter 10, your privacy was +Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter 10, your privacy was assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your @@ -10294,7 +10299,7 @@ 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 @@ -10302,7 +10307,7 @@ because at the side of the page, there's a list of "recently viewed" 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. +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 @@ -10316,7 +10321,7 @@ 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 whether you're in favor of +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 who believe in privacy to @@ -10327,8 +10332,8 @@ 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 @@ -10364,8 +10369,8 @@ Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann p operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som "Linux"-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å produsere -GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. - +GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. +

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 @@ -10438,7 +10443,7 @@ 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 @@ -10446,7 +10451,7 @@ 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

Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.

@@ -10500,7 +10505,7 @@ 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. +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 culture are @@ -10539,8 +10544,8 @@ 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 @@ -10552,9 +10557,9 @@ others. This is consistent with their own art—they, too, sample from others. Because the legal costs of sampling are so high (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 into the creative +Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs 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. +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 @@ -10587,7 +10592,7 @@ 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

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 @@ -10598,7 +10603,7 @@ In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our end. -

16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter

If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an @@ -10616,7 +10621,7 @@ and "formalities" are banished.

Why?

-As I suggested in chapter 10, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good +As I suggested in chapter 10, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to @@ -10632,7 +10637,7 @@ 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.

@@ -10642,7 +10647,7 @@ these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of approving standards developed by others. -

16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying

Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government @@ -10680,7 +10685,7 @@ one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden of this formality—while producing a database of registrations that would facilitate the licensing of content. -

16.2.1.2. Merking

It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to imposing the death @@ -10708,7 +10713,7 @@ 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 uses. This @@ -10747,7 +10752,7 @@ would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content; it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at the appropriate time. -

16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid

Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år for individuelle forfattere. @@ -10758,7 +10763,7 @@ 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 @@ -10794,10 +10799,10 @@ 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. - +

@@ -10822,7 +10827,7 @@ Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse id kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor "radikalt" kan det være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president? -

16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk

As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly @@ -10839,15 +10844,15 @@ release that movie, even though that 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 @@ -10861,7 +10866,7 @@ 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 @@ -10882,7 +10887,7 @@ 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 @@ -10897,7 +10902,7 @@ part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse would earn artists more income. -

16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen

The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people, most pressing—music. There is no other policy issue that better @@ -10919,7 +10924,7 @@ performing artist to control copies of her performance.

File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not -all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter 5, they enable four +all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter 5, they enable four different kinds of sharing:

@@ -10952,7 +10957,7 @@ the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly weakened.
-As I said in chapter 5, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For +As I said in chapter 5, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume, in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B, and is the dominant use of sharing networks. @@ -10997,7 +11002,7 @@ services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge 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] +content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.^[219]
@@ -11094,7 +11099,7 @@ 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 @@ -11115,7 +11120,7 @@ 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 @@ -11126,7 +11131,7 @@ 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 innovation. This background system @@ -11207,7 +11212,7 @@ type-A-delere. Og v ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet som internettet er. -

16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater

Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven, ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som @@ -11227,7 +11232,7 @@ personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens vernetid var galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var -åpenbar.^[221] +åpenbar.^[221]

Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler @@ -11237,7 +11242,7 @@ 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.

@@ -11287,7 +11292,7 @@ utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, "Hvorfor 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] @@ -11298,56 +11303,56 @@ Technology Law Review 1 (2001): par. 6–18, available at examples in which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen, The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs -between technology and privacy).

^[211] +between 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. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra 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] For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra link #76. -

^[220] +

^[220] William Fisher, Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities (sist revidert: 10. oktober 2000), tilgjengelig @@ -11378,15 +11383,15 @@ Stallman n Stallmanns forslag ikke betale kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se -link #85. - -

^[221] +link #85. + +

^[221] Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), UCLA law Review 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70. -

^[222] +

^[222] Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til @@ -11401,8 +11406,8 @@ artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra Rethinking, 174–76. -

Kapittel 17. Notater

+Rethinking, 174–76. +

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 ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere @@ -11412,12 +11417,12 @@ og finne den originale kilden ved den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert til en passende referanse til materialet. -

Kapittel 18. Takk til

18. Takk til

Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte 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 @@ -11467,4 +11472,4 @@ 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. -