From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:48:29 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Flere indexoppføringer. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~2468 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/c2ab39f07640f25f2c4375c40fa04a1bb8d25e26?ds=inline Flere indexoppføringer. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index a71d4df..dd831fa 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -305,6 +305,7 @@ disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For the changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political culture deem fundamental. +CodePink Women in Peace We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of 2003. As the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that @@ -6155,40 +6156,38 @@ 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. +another. +Commons, John R. + -Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object - because -their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any - particular -moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the government. For -instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think it is meaningless -to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge has washed out, and -it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk about this as a loss of -freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of politics with the vagaries of - ordinary -life. -I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view, which depends -upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue against any -insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view of liberty. As I -argued in Code, we come from a long tradition of political thought with a -broader focus than the narrow question of what the government did when. -John Stuart Mill defended freedom of speech, for example, from the -tyranny of narrow minds, not from the fear of government prosecution; -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19. -John R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor -from constraints imposed by the market; John R. Commons, "The Right -to Work," in Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., John R. -Commons: Selected Essays (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans -with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical - disabilities -by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby making -access to those places easier; 42 United States Code, section 12101 (2000). -Each of these interventions to change existing conditions changes the -liberty of a particular group. The effect of those interventions should be -accounted for in order to understand the effective liberty that each of these -groups might face. - +Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object +because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any +particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the +government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people +think it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been +restrained. A bridge has washed out, and it's harder to get from one +place to another. To talk about this as a loss of freedom, they say, +is to confuse the stuff of politics with the vagaries of ordinary +life. I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view, which +depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue +against any insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view +of liberty. As I argued in Code, we come from a long tradition of +political thought with a broader focus than the narrow question of +what the government did when. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of +speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds, not from the +fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Indiana: +Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19. John R. Commons famously defended +the economic freedom of labor from constraints imposed by the market; +John R. Commons, "The Right to Work," in Malcom Rutherford and Warren +J. Samuels, eds., John R. Commons: Selected Essays (London: +Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans with Disabilities Act increases +the liberty of people with physical disabilities by changing the +architecture of certain public places, thereby making access to those +places easier; 42 United States Code, section 12101 (2000). Each of +these interventions to change existing conditions changes the liberty +of a particular group. The effect of those interventions should be +accounted for in order to understand the effective liberty that each +of these groups might face. Why Hollywood Is Right @@ -12915,6 +12914,7 @@ something more than the handmaiden of the most powerful interests. It might be crazy to argue that we should preserve a tradition that has been part of our tradition for most of our history—free culture. +CodePink Women in Peace If this is crazy, then let there be more crazies. Soon. There are moments of hope in this struggle. And moments that surprise. When the @@ -13375,37 +13375,32 @@ The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the control effected through law and technology. -Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a - nonprofit +Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at -Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of reasonable copyright -on top of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for -people to build upon other people's work, by making it simple for - creators -to express the freedom for others to take and build upon their -work. Simple tags, tied to human-readable descriptions, tied to - bulletproof -licenses, make this possible. - - -Simple—which means without a middleman, or without a lawyer. -By developing a free set of licenses that people can attach to their -content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content that -can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to -machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers - automatically -to identify content that can easily be shared. These three - expressions -together—a legal license, a human-readable description, and +Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of reasonable +copyright on top of the extremes that now reign. It does this by +making it easy for people to build upon other people's work, by making +it simple for creators to express the freedom for others to take and +build upon their work. Simple tags, tied to human-readable +descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this possible. + + +Simple—which means without a middleman, or without a lawyer. By +developing a free set of licenses that people can attach to their +content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content that can +easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to +machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers +automatically to identify content that can easily be shared. These +three expressions together—a legal license, a human-readable +description, and machine-readable tags—constitute a Creative Commons license. A -Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone -who accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the -ideal that the person associated with the license believes in something +Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who +accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal +that the person associated with the license believes in something different than the "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the -CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that - certain -freedoms are given. +CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that +certain freedoms are given. These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their @@ -14037,30 +14032,25 @@ rights regime, that reuse would earn artists more income. 4. Liberate the Music—Again -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 -teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing -of music. +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 teaches the lessons of this book than the +battles around the sharing of music. -The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the - Internet's -growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more - powerfully -than any other single application. It was the Internet's killer -app—possibly in two senses of that word. It no doubt was the - application -that drove demand for bandwidth. It may well be the application -that drives demand for regulations that in the end kill innovation on -the network. - - -The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music -in particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, - performed, -and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving +The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the +Internet's growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more +powerfully than any other single application. It was the Internet's +killer app—possibly in two senses of that word. It no doubt was +the application that drove demand for bandwidth. It may well be the +application that drives demand for regulations that in the end kill +innovation on the network. + + +The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in +particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, +performed, and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a performing artist to control copies of her performance. @@ -14084,17 +14074,15 @@ on the way to purchasing CDs. -There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get - access -to content that is no longer sold but is still under copyright -or that would have been too cumbersome to buy off the Net. +There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get access to +content that is no longer sold but is still under copyright or that +would have been too cumbersome to buy off the Net. -There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get - access -to content that is not copyrighted or to get access that the -copyright owner plainly endorses. +There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get access to +content that is not copyrighted or to get access that the copyright +owner plainly endorses. @@ -14106,11 +14094,11 @@ 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 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. +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. Nonetheless, there is a crucial fact about the current technological @@ -14118,17 +14106,16 @@ context that we must keep in mind if we are to understand how the law should respond. -Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive -today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of - content. -It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of content -in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and slow—we -in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at 1.5 MBs, and -very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and down. Although -wireless access is growing, most of us still get access across wires. Most -only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The idea of the - always -on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea. +Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is +addictive today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a +broad range of content. It won't be the easiest way to get access to +a broad range of content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet +is cumbersome and slow—we in the United States are lucky to have +broadband service at 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at +that speed both up and down. Although wireless access is growing, most +of us still get access across wires. Most only gain access through a +machine with a keyboard. The idea of the always on, always connected +Internet is mainly just an idea. But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to @@ -14136,38 +14123,35 @@ the Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on the basis of where the technology is going. The - question -should not be, how should the law regulate sharing in this world? -The question should be, what law will we require when the network -becomes the network it is clearly becoming? That network is one in -which every machine with electricity is essentially on the Net; where -everywhere you are—except maybe the desert or the Rockies—you can -instantaneously be connected to the Internet. Imagine the Internet as -ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service, where with the flip of a - device, -you are connected. - - -In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that -give you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio, content -that is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the -critical point: When it is extremely easy to connect to services that give -access to content, it will be easier to connect to services that give you -access to content than it will be to download and store content on the -many devices you will have for playing content. It will be easier, in other -words, to subscribe than it will be to be a database manager, as - everyone -in the download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies - essentially -is. Content 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. - See, for example, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, -3 April 2002, available at +question should not be, how should the law regulate sharing in this +world? The question should be, what law will we require when the +network becomes the network it is clearly becoming? That network is +one in which every machine with electricity is essentially on the Net; +where everywhere you are—except maybe the desert or the +Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the +Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone +service, where with the flip of a device, you are connected. + + +In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services +that give you access to content on the fly—such as Internet +radio, content that is streamed to the user when the user +demands. Here, then, is the critical point: When it is extremely easy +to connect to services that give access to content, it will be easier +to connect to services that give you access to content than it will be +to download and store content on the many devices you will have for +playing content. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe than +it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the +download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially +is. Content 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. + +See, for example, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 +April 2002, available at link #76. @@ -14219,14 +14203,13 @@ from the author's perspective, this "sharing" of his content without his being compensated is less than ideal. -The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply -deem out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make -copies of the music available for sale, then commercial and - noncommercial +The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem +out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of +the music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would be free, under this rule, to "share" that content, -even though the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would -be incidental to the trade; in a context where commercial publishing -has ended, trading music should be as free as trading books. +even though the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be +incidental to the trade; in a context where commercial publishing has +ended, trading music should be as free as trading books.