Fri kultur

Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen -og kontrollere kreativiteten

Lawrence Lessig

Versjon 2004-02-10

+Fri kultur

Fri kultur

Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen +og kontrollere kreativiteten

Lawrence Lessig

Versjon 2004-02-10

Denne versjonen av Fri Kultur er lisensert med en Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt. For mer informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

2004-03-25

Om forfatteren

-Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i -juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law -School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og -styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). +Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss +og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, +er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i +Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public @@ -18,15 +18,15 @@ Advancement of Free Software, to ganger v utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. -

Dedikasjon

Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for hvem saken fortsetter.

Figur 1. Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert

Figuroversikt

1. Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert
11.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken +

Innholdsfortegnelse

Forord

1. Introduksjon

I. "Piratvirksomhet"

2. Kapittel en: Skaperne

3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger

5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"

Film
Innspilt musikk
Radio
Kabel-TV

6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"

Piracy I
Piracy II

II. "Eiendom"

7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne

8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne

9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere

10. Kapittel ni: Samlere

11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"

Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Opphav
Loven: Varighet
Loven: Virkeområde
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Marked: Konsentrasjon
Sammen

III. Nøtter

12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera

13. Kapittel tolv: Skader

Constraining Creators
Constraining Innovators
Corrupting Citizens

IV. Maktfordeling

14. Kapittel tretten: Eldred
15. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II

16. Konklusjon

17. Etterord

Oss, nå

Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé

Dem, snart

1. Flere formaliteter
2. Kortere vernetid
3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen
5. Spark en masse advokater

18. Notater

19. Takk til

Indeks

Figuroversikt

1. Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert
11.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation.
11.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.
11.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.
11.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
11.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.
11.6. "Opphavsrett" i dag.
11.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.
11.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.
11.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.
11.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".
11.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively -regulated.
11.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.
11.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.
11.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"
11.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".
11.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".
11.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".
11.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.
11.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.

tabelloversikt

6.1. Tabell
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.

Kolofon

+regulated.

11.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.

11.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.

11.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"

11.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".

11.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".

11.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".

11.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.

11.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.

tabelloversikt

6.1. Tabell
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.

Kolofon

Du kan kjøpe en kopi av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene nedenfor:

Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ The Penguin Press, New York

Fri Kultur

-Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen +Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen og kontrollere kreativiteten

Lawrence Lessig @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ 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 @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ 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 @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ investert i den bestemt 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 mediakonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon @@ -165,13 +165,13 @@ 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 @@ -214,11 +214,11 @@ denne boken er skrevet.

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

^[2] +

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

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

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

Kapittel 1. Introduksjon

17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ 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 @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ 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 @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ 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 @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ 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."

@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ sider eller kun noen f lovpraksis-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 @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ 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 @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ et plass som ble fylt opp. . . . Et papir ble kr 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 @@ -348,16 +348,16 @@ 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 @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ 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 @@ -381,8 +381,8 @@ 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 @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ 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 @@ -464,13 +464,13 @@ 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 @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ 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. @@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ 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. @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ 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 @@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ 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 @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ 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 @@ -662,10 +662,10 @@ 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 @@ -673,21 +673,21 @@ 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 @@ -695,17 +695,17 @@ interesse n 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. +Law Journal 106 (1996): 283.

Del I. "Piratvirksomhet"

Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet, @@ -715,8 +715,8 @@ 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 @@ -752,15 +752,15 @@ 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 @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ 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 begresningen til lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om @@ -801,32 +801,32 @@ 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] Desverre ser vi også en +klasse"^[18] Desverre 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. -

Innholdsfortegnelse

2. Kapittel en: Skaperne

3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger

5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"

Film
Innspilt musikk
Radio
Kabel-TV

6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"

Piracy I
Piracy II

^[15] +

Innholdsfortegnelse

2. Kapittel en: Skaperne

3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger

5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"

Film
Innspilt musikk
Radio
Kabel-TV

6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"

Piracy I
Piracy II

^[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 @@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye -vanskeligere. +vanskeligere.

Kapittel 2. 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. @@ -864,11 +864,11 @@ bl Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte nesten instiktivt 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 -grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!^[19] +grufult, 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 @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ 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 @@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ 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 @@ -950,15 +950,15 @@ Vi kan kalle dette "Disney-kreativitet", selv om det vil v misvisende. Det er mer presist "Walt Disney-kreativitet"—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet. -

In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively -fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite -vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty -years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact -copyrighted.^[22] That means that for thirty -years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had -an "exclusive right" to control certain uses of the work. To use this -copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the copyright -owner. +

I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt +fersk. Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske +levende. Gjennomsnittelig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve +år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var +opphavsrettsbeskyttet.^[22] Det betyr at i +tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verkers +opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte +typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse opphavsvernsbeskyttede verkene på +de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra opphavsrettsinnehaveren.

Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette @@ -1052,7 +1052,7 @@ 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 @@ -1060,14 +1060,14 @@ 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." -

-The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is precisely -the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that explains the -mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra, for example, -hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these technical violations -because they spur the manga market to be more wealthy and -productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were banned, so the law -does not ban doujinshi.^[24] +

+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 hypotiserer 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 værre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven +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 @@ -1100,12 +1100,12 @@ Hvis du er som meg et ti begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.

-We live in a world that celebrates "property." I am one of those -celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also -believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call -"intellectual property."^[25] A large, -diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and -modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property. +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 "immaterielle +eierrettigheter".^[25] Et stort og variert +samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderte samfunn kan ikke +blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.

But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of value out there that "property" doesn't capture. I don't mean "money can't @@ -1126,12 +1126,12 @@ verdifulle, s Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er bra.

-The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into a -publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest -work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in -saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would have -stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever form, -whether large or small. +Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen. Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt +seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans +siste verk—elller bare en kopi—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å +nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å å trengt seg inn +på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling +i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.

Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere "stjeler". Denne formen for Walt @@ -1174,12 +1174,12 @@ affiliated with a studio or not? Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på. Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri. -

^[19] +

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

^[20] +

^[20] Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie, @@ -1190,12 +1190,12 @@ 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 @@ -1207,12 +1207,12 @@ 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 @@ -1223,7 +1223,7 @@ 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] The term intellectual property is of relatively recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and @@ -1232,8 +1232,8 @@ also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York: Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of "property" rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different. - -

Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

+ +

Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"

In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they were called "daguerreotypes." The process was complicated and expensive, and the @@ -1263,7 +1263,7 @@ could dramatically broaden the population of photographers.
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis -of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."^[26] As he described in The Kodak +of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."^[26] As he described in The Kodak Primer:
The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that any @@ -1273,7 +1273,7 @@ sufficient intelligence to point a box straight and press a button, with an instrument which altogether removes from the practice of photography the necessity for exceptional facilities or, in fact, any special knowledge of the art. It can be employed without preliminary study, without a darkroom -and without chemicals.^[27] +and without chemicals.^[27]
For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded with film, and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an Eastman factory, @@ -1283,10 +1283,10 @@ became the basis for the explosive growth of popular photography. Eastman's camera first went on sale in 1888; one year later, Kodak was printing more than six thousand negatives a day. From 1888 through 1909, while industrial production was rising by 4.7 percent, photographic equipment and material -sales increased by percent.^[28] Eastman +sales increased by percent.^[28] Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced an average annual increase -of over 17 percent.^[29] -
+of over 17 percent.^[29] +
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It @@ -1297,7 +1297,7 @@ author Brian Coe notes, "For the first time the snapshot album provided the man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its activities. . . . For the first time in history there exists an authentic visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made -without [literary] interpretation or bias."^[30] +without [literary] interpretation or bias."^[30]
In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression. The pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it @@ -1317,7 +1317,7 @@ photography, there was a series of judicial decisions that could well have changed the course of photography substantially. Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was -no.^[31] +no.^[31]
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly @@ -1326,12 +1326,12 @@ building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought valuable. -
+
On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well. Sure, there may be something of value being used. But citizens should have the right to capture at least those images that stand in public view. (Louis Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought the rule should -be different for images from private spaces.^[32]) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for +be different for images from private spaces.^[32]) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from Steamboat Bill, Jr. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free to capture an image without compensating the source. @@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ permission was presumed. Freedom was the default. (The law would eventually craft an exception for famous people: commercial photographers who snap pictures of famous people for commercial purposes have more restrictions than the rest of us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured -without clearing the rights to do the capturing.^[33]) +without clearing the rights to do the capturing.^[33])
We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer, @@ -1382,12 +1382,12 @@ the filmed culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children to learn something about media by doing something with media. By doing, they think. By tinkering, they learn. -
+
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, "Five years ago, a good real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get professional -quality for $595."^[34] These buses are +quality for $595."^[34] These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are learning more and more of @@ -1398,7 +1398,7 @@ something teachers call "media literacy." puts it, "is the ability . . . to understand, analyze, and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the way people access it." - +
This may seem like an odd way to think about "literacy." For most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway and noticing @@ -1406,7 +1406,7 @@ split infinitives are the things that "literate" people know about.
Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials -generally,^[35] it is increasingly important +generally,^[35] it is increasingly important to understand the "grammar" of media. For just as there is a grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by @@ -1427,20 +1427,20 @@ film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not from reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then reflecting upon what one has written. One learns to write with images by making them and then reflecting upon what one has created. -
+
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about "the placement -of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."^[36] But as computers open up an interactive space where +of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."^[36] But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction. But when he tried to design a computer game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not obvious, even to a wildly successful -author.^[37] -
+author.^[37] +
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes, "people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If a @@ -1466,9 +1466,9 @@ could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this literacy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate -language for what they need to create or express."^[38] It is to enable students "to communicate in the -language of the twenty-first century."^[39] -
+language for what they need to create or express."^[38] It is to enable students "to communicate in the +language of the twenty-first century."^[39] +
As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in written language. Daley and Stephanie Barish, director of the Institute for @@ -1556,7 +1556,7 @@ screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance," and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is tragedy. -
+
But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11," those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these @@ -1626,11 +1626,11 @@ him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to -an end.^[40] +an end.^[40]
Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place, there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are -pushing to create just such an institution.^[41] And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation +pushing to create just such an institution.^[41] And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
@@ -1639,7 +1639,7 @@ the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse -becomes more extreme.^[42] We say what our +becomes more extreme.^[42] We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ political cover political issues when the occasion merits. The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The name Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race but for blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading is having an -effect. +effect.
One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke" @@ -1670,7 +1670,7 @@ disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking" emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the -end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.^[43] +end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.^[43]
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are @@ -1693,12 +1693,12 @@ conflict of interest" out of journalism, Winer told me. "An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of the way." -
+
These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public than an unconcentrated media can—as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own -employees.^[44] It also needs to sustain a +employees.^[44] It also needs to sustain a more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter @@ -1710,7 +1710,7 @@ the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to -retell what they had seen.^[45] And it +retell what they had seen.^[45] And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"—with all the @@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that "journalism" is happy about this—some journalists have been told to -curtail their blogging.^[46] But it is clear +curtail their blogging.^[46] But it is clear that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space @@ -1740,7 +1740,7 @@ when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be something extraordinary to report. -
+
John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and . . . the creation of knowledge ecologies for creating . . . innovation." @@ -1790,7 +1790,7 @@ text. "The Web . . . says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if you are visual, if you are interested in film . . . [then] there is a lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these multiple forms of intelligence." -
+
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as @@ -1806,11 +1806,10 @@ increasingly, technology interfere with a freedom that technology, and curiosity, would otherwise ensure.
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars. -Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 10) has -developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it -applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.^[47] But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more -fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because -of the law. +Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 11) has developed a +powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it applies to +computer science and to knowledge in general.^[47] But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It +is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law.
"This is where education in the twenty-first century is going," Brown explains. We need to "understand how kids who grow up digital think and want @@ -1821,36 +1820,37 @@ are building a legal system that completely suppresses the natural tendencies of today's digital kids. . . . We're building an architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system that closes down that part of the brain." -
+
We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes moving images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an opportunity to spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building the law to close down that technology.
-"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter 9, -quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence. -

^[26] +"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter +10, quipped to me +in a rare moment of despondence. +

^[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 illustrative cases, see, for example, Pavesich @@ -1858,11 +1858,11 @@ v. N.E. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905); Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn, 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); Corliss v. Walker, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894). -
^[32] +
^[32] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," -Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. -
^[33] +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. +
^[33] See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," Law and @@ -1871,68 +1871,68 @@ Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, 398–407; White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). -
^[34] +
^[34] H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," cadalyst, 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 May 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 and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2) (2002): 129. -
^[42] +
^[42] Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192. -
^[43] +
^[43] Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5. -
^[44] +
^[44] Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003. -
^[45] +
^[45] John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information Online," New York Times, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at link #10. -
^[46] +
^[46] See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?" New York Times, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news @@ -1941,8 +1941,8 @@ CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year Steve Olafson, a Houston Chronicle reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym, that -dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.") -
^[47] +dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.") +
^[47] See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, "Technological Access @@ -2057,7 +2057,7 @@ demands for "damages" that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to. If you added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United States to award the plaintiffs close to $100 billion—six times the total -profit of the film industry in 2001.^[48] +profit of the film industry in 2001.^[48]
Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened. An uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They demanded to @@ -2090,9 +2090,9 @@ put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality. Where is the morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in scapegoatism? The RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The president of the RIAA is reported to make more than $1 million a year. Artists, on the other hand, -are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.^[49] There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and +are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.^[49] There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for -running a search engine?^[50] +running a search engine?^[50]
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet for RIA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde @@ -2109,20 +2109,20 @@ father told me, Jesse "considers himself very conservative, and so do I. . . . He's not a tree hugger. . . . I think it's bizarre that they would pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the wrong message. And he wants to correct the record." -

^[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—Musicians and Singers). See also 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," @@ -2136,7 +2136,7 @@ kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's pirates join this generation's country club—until now.
Film
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.^[51] Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast +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 @@ -2161,13 +2161,13 @@ 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. @@ -2190,7 +2190,7 @@ 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 @@ -2214,27 +2214,27 @@ 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] +without any regard for [their] rights.^[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 @@ -2259,7 +2259,7 @@ 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 @@ -2271,7 +2271,7 @@ 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 @@ -2288,7 +2288,7 @@ recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music, with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater -choice.^[61] +choice.^[61]
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit. @@ -2296,7 +2296,7 @@ work, the record producers, and the public, benefit. Radio was also born of piracy.
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. @@ -2310,7 +2310,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2332,7 +2332,7 @@ 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 @@ -2351,28 +2351,28 @@ 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]
Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
All we are asking for is a very simple thing, that people who now take our property for nothing pay for it. We are trying to stop piracy and I don't think there is any lesser word to describe it. I think there are harsher -words which would fit it.^[66] +words which would fit it.^[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, @@ -2382,7 +2382,7 @@ 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. @@ -2399,18 +2399,18 @@ 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] I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 87–93, which details Edison's "adventures" -with copyright and patent. -
^[52] +with copyright and patent. +
^[52] J. A. Aberdeen, Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent @@ -2421,12 +2421,12 @@ 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 @@ -2435,35 +2435,35 @@ 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] +
^[55] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association). -
^[56] +
^[56] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association). -
^[57] +
^[57] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of John Philip Sousa, composer). -
^[58] +
^[58] To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84 (statement of Albert Walker, representative of 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] @@ -2473,12 +2473,12 @@ 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" @@ -2490,40 +2490,40 @@ 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] +
^[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] +
^[68] Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman, -acting assistant attorney general). -
^[69] +acting assistant attorney general). +
^[69] See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The @@ -2552,7 +2552,7 @@ All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content, copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion -every year to physical piracy^[70] (that +every year to physical piracy^[70] (that works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
@@ -2587,7 +2587,7 @@ 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. @@ -2596,7 +2596,7 @@ 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 @@ -2633,8 +2633,8 @@ 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, @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2687,7 +2687,7 @@ us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
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. @@ -2695,13 +2695,13 @@ 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 @@ -2712,10 +2712,10 @@ 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 @@ -2740,7 +2740,7 @@ 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.
@@ -2778,7 +2778,7 @@ 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 @@ -2796,7 +2796,7 @@ 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. @@ -2806,7 +2806,7 @@ 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] +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 @@ -2831,17 +2831,17 @@ 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]
@@ -2874,7 +2874,7 @@ 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 @@ -2883,14 +2883,14 @@ 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 @@ -2935,14 +2935,14 @@ 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 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 is how best to preserve its benefits while -minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The -question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that -balance will be found only with time. +like the piracy I described in chapter 5, 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 +is how best to preserve its benefits while minimizing (to the extent +possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of +balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be found +only with time.
Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type A-deling? @@ -2954,7 +2954,7 @@ 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 @@ -3006,7 +3006,7 @@ 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 @@ -3035,21 +3035,21 @@ 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 @@ -3059,7 +3059,7 @@ 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 @@ -3071,7 +3071,7 @@ 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 @@ -3079,7 +3079,7 @@ request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this "taking" notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:
Tabell 6.1. Tabell
CASE WHOSE VALUE WAS "PIRATED" RESPONSE OF THE COURTS RESPONSE OF CONGRESS
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.
@@ -3106,7 +3106,7 @@ 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 @@ -3132,7 +3132,7 @@ 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 @@ -3143,7 +3143,7 @@ whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
"It is our property," the warriors insist. "And it should be protected just as any other property is protected." -

^[70] +

^[70] See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), @@ -3151,7 +3151,7 @@ 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 @@ -3166,8 +3166,8 @@ 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: @@ -3175,13 +3175,13 @@ 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] +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 @@ -3191,8 +3191,8 @@ 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," @@ -3203,7 +3203,7 @@ 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] @@ -3212,16 +3212,16 @@ 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] -See Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy, -148–49. -
^[79] +Se Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy, +148–49. +
^[79] See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the @@ -3234,11 +3234,11 @@ 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 @@ -3253,15 +3253,15 @@ 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 @@ -3269,7 +3269,7 @@ 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 @@ -3281,7 +3281,7 @@ available at link #20. -
^[86] +
^[86] See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35 @@ -3290,38 +3290,38 @@ 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. v. Sony Corp. of America, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981). -
^[92] +
^[92] Sony Corp. of America v. 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 @@ -3333,13 +3333,13 @@ technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See Lessig, Future, 71. See also Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag," University of Chicago Law Review -70 (2003): 293–96. -
^[94] +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 @@ -3372,7 +3372,7 @@ weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I copy the way someone else dresses), "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his -taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."^[96] +taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."^[96]
The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that I won't discuss @@ -3382,7 +3382,7 @@ permission: The law turns the intangible into property. But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details, in other words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the intangible into property emerged, we need to place this "property" in its -proper context.^[97] +proper context.^[97]
My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of "copyright material is @@ -3391,13 +3391,13 @@ does it function in practice? After these stories, the significance of this true statement—"copyright material is property"— will be a bit more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw. -
Innholdsfortegnelse
7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere
10. Kapittel ni: Samlere
11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Opphav
Loven: Varighet
Loven: Virkeområde
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Marked: Konsentrasjon
Sammen

^[96] +
Innholdsfortegnelse
7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere
10. Kapittel ni: Samlere
11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Opphav
Loven: Varighet
Loven: Virkeområde
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde
Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Marked: Konsentrasjon
Sammen

^[96] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in 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 @@ -3420,8 +3420,8 @@ Shakespeare er s I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at Romeo og Julie ble skrevet, mente mange at "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i -London, John Tonson. ^[98] Tonson var den -mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"^[99], som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele +London, John Tonson. ^[98] Tonson var den +mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"^[99], som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier" av bøker de hadde fått av forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på @@ -3434,18 +3434,18 @@ det britiske parlamentet vedtok den f "Statute of Anne" og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha en ekstraperiode -på 22 tillegsår.^[100] På grunn av denne +på 22 tillegsår.^[100] På grunn av denne loven, så skulle Rome og Julie ha falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i 1774?
-The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a "copyright" -was—indeed, no one had. At the time the English passed the Statute of -Anne, there was no other legislation governing copyrights. The last law -regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662, had expired in 1695. That -law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as a way to make it easier -for the Crown to control what was published. But after it expired, there -was no positive law that said that the publishers, or "Stationers," had an -exclusive right to print books. +Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva +opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da +engelskmennene vedtok "Statute of Anne", var det ingen annen lovgivning om +opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var lisensieringsloven +av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol over publiseringen, +noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva ble publisert. Men +etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa at utgiverne hadde +en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
At det ikke fantes noen positiv lov, betydde ikke at det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både @@ -3538,7 +3538,7 @@ monopolister av verste sort - et verkt solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som "gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor -ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."^[101] +ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."^[101]
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap, var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste @@ -3570,7 +3570,7 @@ utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, s lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt, et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke -bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.^[102] +bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.^[102]
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: "Statute of Anne" ga @@ -3588,24 +3588,24 @@ forfatterne. Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, "var utgiverne ... like bekymret -for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."^[103] Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes +for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."^[103] Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten forfatterens verk ga.
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne -kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.^[104] +kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.^[104]
Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk -falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".^[105] Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for +falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".^[105] Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel -antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."^[106] +antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."^[106]
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av "de mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær -eiendom." ^[107] Bøkene hans var mellom 30% +eiendom." ^[107] Bøkene hans var mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det fri. @@ -3620,7 +3620,7 @@ Thomsons dikt "The Seasons". Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom "Statute of Anne", men etter at denne beskyttelsen var uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva "Statute of Anne" -sa.^[108] +sa.^[108]
Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med @@ -3641,13 +3641,13 @@ gjennom perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur. -
+
Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson. -
+
Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas -Beckett.^[109] Da ga Donaldson ut en +Beckett.^[109] Da ga Donaldson ut en uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i Millar-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en @@ -3683,8 +3683,8 @@ i det fri innebar. F kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk historie - inkludert Shakespeare, -Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie. - +Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie. +
Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste @@ -3692,7 +3692,7 @@ piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgj Edinburgh Advertiser skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh -etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.^[110] +etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.^[110]
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i motsatt retning. Morning Chronicle skrev: @@ -3702,7 +3702,7 @@ blitt redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte, og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø -familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.^[111] +familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.^[111]
@@ -3726,7 +3726,7 @@ 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 @@ -3736,24 +3736,24 @@ 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 @@ -3763,46 +3763,46 @@ 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] +
^[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. @@ -3819,7 +3819,7 @@ In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera. Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera. During a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in the lighting loft. They -make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. +make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage.
During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands playing @@ -3840,13 +3840,13 @@ to get permission. Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program. - +
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted to be careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company. Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission, Else said. He was -just confirming the permission with Fox. +just confirming the permission with Fox.
Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered . . . that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least that someone @@ -3875,7 +3875,7 @@ the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on, The Day -After Trinity, from ten years before. +After Trinity, from ten years before.
There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their @@ -3896,7 +3896,7 @@ in my view) can charge whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought -is "fair use."^[112] Else's use of just 4.5 +is "fair use."^[112] Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a Simpsons episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use does not require the permission of anyone. @@ -3929,7 +3929,7 @@ usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking that we would be granted free or cheap license to four seconds of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to -defend a principle. +defend a principle.
@@ -3957,7 +3957,7 @@ This practice shows just how far the law has come from its eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not. -

^[112] +

^[112] For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers @@ -3965,13 +3965,13 @@ don't permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred" (draft on file with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003. -
Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere
+
Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere
In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in anticipation of the power of networks. -
+
Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he @@ -3979,7 +3979,7 @@ launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films and interviews with figures important to his career. -
+
At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to @@ -3992,19 +3992,19 @@ wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters, scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get permission for that content. -
+
Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's career." -
+
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked, "Well, what will it take?" -
+
Alben replied, "Well, we're going to have to clear rights from everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that we want to -use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."^[113] +use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."^[113]
The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim @@ -4033,7 +4033,7 @@ hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy crashing through the glass—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we just started calling people. -
+
Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, "Hey, can I pay you $600 @@ -4045,7 +4045,7 @@ 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. @@ -4063,12 +4063,12 @@ 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 @@ -4106,7 +4106,7 @@ 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 @@ -4134,14 +4134,14 @@ 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, @@ -4168,7 +4168,7 @@ 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 @@ -4231,13 +4231,13 @@ 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, @@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ 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 @@ -4361,7 +4361,7 @@ 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, @@ -4395,7 +4395,7 @@ 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 @@ -4426,7 +4426,7 @@ 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 @@ -4493,7 +4493,7 @@ 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 @@ -4501,7 +4501,7 @@ 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 @@ -4509,7 +4509,7 @@ 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 @@ -4525,7 +4525,7 @@ administration—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in -Washington. +Washington.
The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to @@ -4535,8 +4535,8 @@ 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. +
@@ -4567,7 +4567,7 @@ 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 @@ -4590,7 +4590,7 @@ 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 @@ -4701,7 +4701,7 @@ 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 @@ -4763,7 +4763,7 @@ 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 @@ -4773,12 +4773,12 @@ reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be more strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast driving. -
Figur 11.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.

+
Figur 11.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.

These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one -modality might be displaced by another.^[121] +modality might be displaced by another.^[121]
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 @@ -4851,7 +4851,7 @@ 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 @@ -4870,13 +4870,13 @@ 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 @@ -4912,16 +4912,16 @@ 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 @@ -4934,7 +4934,7 @@ 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 @@ -4958,7 +4958,7 @@ 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. -
Opphav
+
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 @@ -4979,8 +4979,9 @@ 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 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a -few would not exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising +chapter 7, 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 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors" @@ -5020,7 +5021,7 @@ When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law -rights that already protected creative authorship.^[125] This meant that there was no guaranteed public +rights that already protected creative authorship.^[125] This meant that there was no guaranteed public domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering @@ -5045,7 +5046,7 @@ 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 @@ -5057,11 +5058,11 @@ 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 @@ -5121,7 +5122,7 @@ dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the average term of copyright is now the maximum term. In thirty years, then, -the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.^[129] +the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.^[129]
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 @@ -5191,7 +5192,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5242,14 +5243,14 @@ 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 @@ -5266,7 +5267,7 @@ originally granted. Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies, -and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.^[133] +and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.^[133]
@@ -5284,7 +5285,7 @@ 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. @@ -5333,7 +5334,7 @@ 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 @@ -5492,16 +5493,16 @@ 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. @@ -5518,7 +5519,7 @@ 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 @@ -5551,7 +5552,7 @@ button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer.
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen): -Aristoteles Politikk +Aristoteles Politikk
Figur 11.14. 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. @@ -5566,7 +5567,7 @@ 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 @@ -5592,7 +5593,7 @@ 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 @@ -5646,7 +5647,7 @@ 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.
@@ -5692,7 +5693,7 @@ 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 @@ -5715,7 +5716,7 @@ 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. @@ -5835,7 +5836,7 @@ 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]
@@ -5900,7 +5901,7 @@ 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 @@ -5955,14 +5956,14 @@ most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just three companies control more than percent of the media.
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 @@ -5986,7 +5987,7 @@ 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 @@ -5996,7 +5997,7 @@ 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 @@ -6016,7 +6017,7 @@ 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 @@ -6027,7 +6028,7 @@ 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]
@@ -6046,12 +6047,12 @@ 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 @@ -6059,15 +6060,15 @@ increasingly owned by the network.
While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As Barry -Diller said to Bill Moyers, - +Diller said to 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 @@ -6078,15 +6079,15 @@ 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 @@ -6150,7 +6151,7 @@ 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 @@ -6223,7 +6224,7 @@ 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.
@@ -6274,14 +6275,16 @@ 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 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. +chapters 8 and +9, 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.
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" @@ -6316,7 +6319,7 @@ 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, @@ -6324,7 +6327,7 @@ 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 @@ -6334,7 +6337,7 @@ 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 @@ -6345,7 +6348,7 @@ 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 @@ -6373,8 +6376,8 @@ 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?" @@ -6382,26 +6385,26 @@ BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at link #24. -
^[123] +
^[123] Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71. -
^[124] +
^[124] -See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property: +Se for eksempel James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?" Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87. -
^[125] +
^[125] William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), vol. 1, 485–86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme Law of the Land,' the perpetual rights which authors had, or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law" (emphasis -added). -
^[126] +added). +
^[126] Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to @@ -6417,7 +6420,7 @@ 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 @@ -6428,17 +6431,17 @@ 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 @@ -6446,11 +6449,11 @@ 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, July/August 2003, available at link #26. -
^[132] +Affairs, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. +
^[132] Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about @@ -6459,7 +6462,7 @@ 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] +
^[133] This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly @@ -6470,14 +6473,14 @@ 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 @@ -6485,16 +6488,16 @@ 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] -See David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," Law and +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 @@ -6503,7 +6506,7 @@ 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 @@ -6516,8 +6519,8 @@ 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 @@ -6525,39 +6528,39 @@ 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] +
^[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 @@ -6566,17 +6569,18 @@ sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at link #30. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003. -
^[148] +
^[148] Ibid. -
^[149] +
^[149] "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill -Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available -at link #31. -
^[150] +Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift +tilgjengelig fra link +#31. +
^[150] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The @@ -6589,7 +6593,7 @@ 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 @@ -6613,13 +6617,14 @@ 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 @@ -6630,7 +6635,7 @@ W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980).
Del III. Nøtter
Innholdsfortegnelse
12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera
13. Kapittel tolv: Skader
Constraining Creators
Constraining Innovators
Corrupting Citizens
Kapittel 12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera
In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in -the Peruvian Andes.^[154] The valley is +the Peruvian Andes.^[154] The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an @@ -6686,7 +6691,7 @@ the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the scene. . . ." -
+
Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have @@ -6719,7 +6724,7 @@ Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it," that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to -take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. +take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
@@ -6744,9 +6749,9 @@ could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either -been proposed or actually implemented.^[155] +been proposed or actually implemented.^[155] -
+
Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted @@ -6798,21 +6803,21 @@ turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers, both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting -everyone's interests.^[156] +everyone's interests.^[156]
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the -major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. +major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed.
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable. -

^[154] +

^[154] H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells, The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). -
^[155] +
^[155] For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright @@ -6839,8 +6844,8 @@ 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 @@ -6864,7 +6869,7 @@ In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our history. -
+
Yet "common sense" does not see it this way. Common sense is still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical rejection of "piracy" @@ -6927,13 +6932,13 @@ was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com—which defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in market capitalization of over $200 billion—received a fine of a mere -$750 million.^[157] And under legislation +$750 million.^[157] And under legislation being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in -damages for pain and suffering.^[158] Can +damages for pain and suffering.^[158] Can common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's -negligently butchering a patient? +negligently butchering a patient?
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never @@ -6947,18 +6952,18 @@ very different reasons, we will begin to see a world of underground art—not because the message is necessarily political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of "illegal art" tour the United -States.^[159] In what does their "illegality" +States.^[159] In what does their "illegality" consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing -law. I described that change in detail in chapter 10. But an even bigger -part has to do with the increasing ease with which infractions can be -tracked. As users of file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a -trivial matter for copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service -providers to reveal who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape -player transmitted a list of the songs that you played in the privacy of -your own home that anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose. +law. I described that change in detail in chapter 11. But an even bigger part has to do with +the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of +file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for +copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal +who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a +list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that +anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the @@ -6971,9 +6976,10 @@ monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform them is not similarly free.
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described -in chapter 7, in response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, -I have been lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was -fair use, and hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use. +in chapter 8, in +response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been +lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and +hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
@@ -7042,16 +7048,16 @@ just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect themselves against the competitors of tomorrow. -
+
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy -that I described in chapter 10. The consequence of this massive threat of -liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators -who want to innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the -sign-off from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been -taught through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach -venture capitalists a lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank -Barry calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been +that I described in chapter 11. The consequence of this massive threat of liability +tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to +innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off +from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught +through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture +capitalists a lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry +calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in @@ -7069,7 +7075,7 @@ To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And -so on. +so on.
This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences. MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference @@ -7124,11 +7130,11 @@ som gir r som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem. Det får også du. Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt. -
+
This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its -cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).^[160] The claim here, as well, was that the VC should +cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).^[160] The claim here, as well, was that the VC should have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim @@ -7139,13 +7145,13 @@ buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies that touch content. In an article in Business 2.0, Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: -
+
I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car, there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system, but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are -sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. . . . ^[161] +sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. . . . ^[161]
Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med "penger eller livet"-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som loven gir @@ -7210,13 +7216,13 @@ kneecaps of the Internet. The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected -or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to +or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory "broadcast flag" that would be required on any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down -copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163] +copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163]
@@ -7228,7 +7234,7 @@ will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would -impose.^[164] Their argument was obviously +impose.^[164] Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more harm than good.
@@ -7241,13 +7247,13 @@ regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others. When done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
-As I described in chapter 10, despite this feature of copyright as -regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica -Litman in her book Digital Copyright,^[165] overall this history of copyright is not bad. As -chapter 10 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has -struck a balance to assure that the new is protected from the -old. Compulsory, or statutory, licenses have been one part of that -strategy. Free use (as in the case of the VCR) has been another. +As I described in chapter 11, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and +subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book +Digital Copyright,^[165] overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 +details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a +balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or +statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the +case of the VCR) has been another.
But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a @@ -7255,22 +7261,22 @@ new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.^[166] It has been mirrored in the responses threatened +The response by the courts has been fairly universal.^[166] It has been mirrored in the responses threatened and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses -here.^[167] But there is one example that +here.^[167] But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet radio.
-As I described in chapter 4, when a radio station plays a song, the -recording artist doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or -she is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a -version of "Happy Birthday"—to memorialize her famous performance -before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then whenever that -recording was played on the radio, the current copyright owners of "Happy -Birthday" would get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not. +As I described in chapter 5, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist +doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or she is also the +composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a version of "Happy +Birthday"—to memorialize her famous performance before President +Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then whenever that recording was +played on the radio, the current copyright owners of "Happy Birthday" would +get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not.
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist @@ -7320,11 +7326,11 @@ mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its -shackles.^[168] +shackles.^[168]
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not because Armstrong was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of -"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"^[169] to retard the growth of this competing technology. +"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"^[169] to retard the growth of this competing technology.
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio @@ -7348,7 +7354,7 @@ This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a -year.^[170] A regular radio station +year.^[170] A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were @@ -7418,7 +7424,7 @@ not. Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was the motive to protect artists against piracy? -
+
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at Real Networks, told me, @@ -7458,7 +7464,7 @@ citizens and weakens the rule of law. The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number of citizens. According to The New York Times, 43 -million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.^[171] According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans +million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.^[171] According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search @@ -7477,7 +7483,7 @@ money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals—including a twelve-year-old girl living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what -file sharing was.^[172] As these scapegoats +file sharing was.^[172] As these scapegoats discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an @@ -7492,12 +7498,12 @@ gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number -were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war +were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7 -percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of +percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system -that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.^[175] We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an +that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.^[175] We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
@@ -7572,7 +7578,7 @@ copy-protection technologies, I am "free" to copy, or "rip," music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies. -
+
This "use" of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program called @@ -7641,10 +7647,10 @@ directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the "collateral damage" that "arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally. - +
"Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann, - +
then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to one degree or another. . . . If you're a copyright infringer, how can you @@ -7673,12 +7679,12 @@ copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of -these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.^[176] +these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.^[176]
Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted -to track Napster users.^[177] Using a +to track Napster users.^[177] Using a sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those MP3s will have the same "fingerprint." @@ -7692,7 +7698,7 @@ if the college network is "cooperating" with the RIAA's espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter as a "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to -deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the +deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
@@ -7703,7 +7709,7 @@ from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the university might not believe her. It might treat this "contraband" as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in the middle of wars of -prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann, +prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann,
So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the @@ -7728,28 +7734,29 @@ rights to authors—without these millions being considered "criminals," who is the villain? Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law? -

^[157] +

^[157] See Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, "MCI Wins U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at -link #37. -
^[158] +link #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] -See Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," Wired, -7 July 2003, available at link -#40. For an overview of the exhibition, see link #41. -
^[160] +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] See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," Los @@ -7759,28 +7766,29 @@ 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 June 2003, available at link #43. I am grateful to -Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. -
^[162] +2.0, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via link #43. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad +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] - Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, N.Y.: -Prometheus Books, 2001). -
^[166] +
^[165] + +Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, N.Y.: +Prometheus Books, 2001). +
^[166] The only circuit court exception is found in Recording Industry @@ -7796,7 +7804,7 @@ 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 @@ -7809,16 +7817,16 @@ 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 @@ -7834,37 +7842,37 @@ 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 @@ -7878,12 +7886,12 @@ 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," @@ -7987,25 +7995,24 @@ 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 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 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that -year (and not even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, -in the same period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public -domain. +library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter 11, 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 +copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not +even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same +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 @@ -8040,7 +8047,7 @@ 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 @@ -8125,11 +8132,11 @@ 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 @@ -8174,16 +8181,16 @@ 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 @@ -8221,7 +8228,7 @@ 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. @@ -8248,7 +8255,7 @@ 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]
@@ -8313,7 +8320,7 @@ 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 @@ -8322,7 +8329,7 @@ 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 @@ -8341,7 +8348,7 @@ 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. @@ -8480,7 +8487,7 @@ 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 @@ -8540,7 +8547,7 @@ 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 @@ -8549,7 +8556,7 @@ 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 @@ -8608,7 +8615,7 @@ 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 @@ -8624,7 +8631,7 @@ 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 @@ -8635,7 +8642,7 @@ 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 @@ -8655,7 +8662,7 @@ 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 @@ -8665,7 +8672,7 @@ 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 @@ -8683,13 +8690,13 @@ 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 @@ -8718,7 +8725,7 @@ 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 @@ -8737,7 +8744,7 @@ 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 @@ -8803,18 +8810,18 @@ 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 @@ -8881,7 +8888,7 @@ in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted under the copyright laws. -
+
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the @@ -8994,7 +9001,7 @@ hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it will respect, that is the system we have. -
+
Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of @@ -9004,7 +9011,7 @@ parallel—without explaining how the very same words in the Progress Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether the words were about patents or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's charge go unanswered. -
+
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was @@ -9054,7 +9061,7 @@ consistent with their own principles. My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as it is. -
+
Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won @@ -9080,10 +9087,10 @@ stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue. -
+
Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen -Sullivan? +Sullivan?
My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take @@ -9100,7 +9107,7 @@ And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should -not be raised until it is. +not be raised until it is.
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly, @@ -9130,7 +9137,7 @@ The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page. The "powerful and wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like -that. +that.
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from The New York Times. That "grand experiment" we call @@ -9139,7 +9146,7 @@ shrunk the Constitution." But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would have made them see differently. -

^[179] +

^[179] There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but @@ -9154,7 +9161,7 @@ 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 @@ -9164,33 +9171,33 @@ 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 @@ -9201,19 +9208,19 @@ 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," @@ -9221,7 +9228,7 @@ 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 @@ -9230,18 +9237,18 @@ 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 @@ -9254,7 +9261,7 @@ finally over—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece. -
+
It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And @@ -9281,7 +9288,7 @@ Act." Either way, the essence of the idea is clear and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let the content go. -
+
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the @@ -9300,23 +9307,24 @@ marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified. -
- -As I described in chapter 10, formalities in copyright law were removed in -1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal -requirement before a copyright is granted.^[194] The Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right." -Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the -Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if -their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly -respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my -creativity, not upon the special favor of the government. +
+ +As I described in chapter 11, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976, +when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement +before a copyright is granted.^[194] The +Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right." Natural rights +don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition +that required copyright owners to follow form if their rights were to be +protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly respect the dignity of +the author. My right as a creator turns on my creativity, not upon the +special favor of the government.
That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread "Walt Disney creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's protected and what's not. -
+
The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908, to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the @@ -9378,7 +9386,7 @@ owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without formalities. Complex, expensive, lawyer transactions -take their place. +take their place.
This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't "get." @@ -9427,7 +9435,7 @@ fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty years. What do you think? -
+
Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de @@ -9439,7 +9447,7 @@ lov. Det p opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert. 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, "vi er nære". Det oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her. - +
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of @@ -9534,7 +9542,7 @@ tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own creation. -
+
What is hard to understand is why the public takes this view. It is as if the law made airplanes trespassers. The MPAA stands with the Causbys and demands that their remote and useless property rights be respected, so that @@ -9548,7 +9556,7 @@ Internet. The consequence will be an increasing "permission society." The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past. -

^[194] +

^[194] Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright @@ -9567,7 +9575,7 @@ 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.
Del V. Konklusjon
+153–54.
Kapittel 16. Konklusjon
Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis @@ -9586,7 +9594,7 @@ mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert 000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er -disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.^[195] +disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.^[195]
@@ -9619,12 +9627,12 @@ en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren. For eksempel, hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika fra India. Dette kalles "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske -union.^[196] +union.^[196]
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det, "Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika . . . til å ikke tillate tvungen -lisensiering eller parallellimport"^[197] +lisensiering eller parallellimport"^[197] Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven—og for å legge press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land som burde @@ -9636,7 +9644,7 @@ ved patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i -Sør-Afrika.^[198] +Sør-Afrika.^[198]
Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang @@ -9663,7 +9671,7 @@ selskapene betydelig.
I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om -eiendoms ukrenkelighet.^[199] Det var på +eiendoms ukrenkelighet.^[199] Det var på grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av "intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere @@ -9752,7 +9760,7 @@ kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en "perfekt storm" for fri kultur.
I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual -Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.^[200] På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO +Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.^[200] På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og sammarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet". Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av @@ -9768,7 +9776,7 @@ Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte "åpen kildekode og fri -programvare". +programvare".
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell @@ -9777,7 +9785,7 @@ balansert med avtaler om begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen -ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var +ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak vitenskapet, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som @@ -9819,15 +9827,15 @@ programvare. Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i stedet for "proprietær programvare," til sine egne interne behov.
-I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear -that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial -software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon -open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is -increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most -famous bit of "free software"—and IBM is emphatically a commercial -entity. Thus, to support "open source and free software" is not to oppose -commercial entities. It is, instead, to support a mode of software -development that is different from Microsoft's.^[202] +Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her. Det er viktig kun for å gjøre +det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell +programvare. Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av +fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende. IBM har i stadig større +grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte +biten av "fri programvare"—og IBM er helt klart en kommernsiell +aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" ikke å motsette seg +kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte å drive +programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.^[202]
Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "åpen kildekode og fri @@ -9851,7 +9859,7 @@ bruker sine lobbyister til ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I følge Jonathan Krim i Washington Post, lyktes Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et -slikt møte.^[203] Og uten støtte fra USA ble +slikt møte.^[203] Og uten støtte fra USA ble møtet avlyst.
Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne @@ -9900,7 +9908,7 @@ s $20 milliarder til gode formål, så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet. Det er heller tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med -sin eiendom. +sin eiendom.
Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål @@ -9919,9 +9927,9 @@ landeier i systemet ikke svekke f eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen. -
+
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget -vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.^[204] +vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.^[204] Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være fritt eller føydalt. Trenden er @@ -9977,7 +9985,7 @@ sannheten. Det kan v mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur. -
+
Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge eierskapregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere @@ -9986,7 +9994,7 @@ partiene for organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med -krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. +krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fientlige høringene som ledet @@ -10023,12 +10031,12 @@ er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet for våre tragedie. -
+
Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om -at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.^[205] Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres -musikk.^[206] Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan +at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.^[205] Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres +musikk.^[206] Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden -over.^[207] En på innsiden i +over.^[207] En på innsiden i Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer "en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn av at de @@ -10038,14 +10046,14 @@ for politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold. -
+
I mens på andre siden av atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold -fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.^[208] +fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.^[208] Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative Commons for å gi ut -innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.^[209] Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer +innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.^[209] Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet. Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki. Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister taper og uten at @@ -10058,7 +10066,7 @@ snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert. -
Innholdsfortegnelse
16.

^[195] +

^[195] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London, 2002), @@ -10066,12 +10074,12 @@ 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 @@ -10082,13 +10090,13 @@ 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] @@ -10104,78 +10112,81 @@ HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," Widener Law Symposium Journal (Spring 2001): 175. -
^[200] +
^[200] Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," Washington -Post, August 2003, E1, available at link #59; William New, "Global +Post, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra link #59; William New, "Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir," National -Journal's Technology Daily, 19 August 2003, available at link #60; William New, +Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra +link #60; William New, "U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," National -Journal's Technology Daily, 19 August 2003, available at link #61. -
^[201] +Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra +link #61. +
^[201] Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet. -
^[202] - - -Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more -sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with "open -source" software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's principal -opposition is to "free software" licensed under a "copyleft" license, -meaning a license that requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any -derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, "The Future of Software: Enabling -the Marketplace to Decide," Government Policy Toward Open Source -Software (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for -Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy -Research, 2002), 69, available at link #62. See also Craig Mundie, -Microsoft senior vice president, The Commercial Software -Model, discussion at New York University Stern School of -Business (3 May 2001), available at link #63. -
^[203] +
^[202] + + +Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer +sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med +programvare som er "åpen kildekode" eller programvare som er allemannseie. +Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot "fri programvare" lisensiert med en +"copyleft"-lisens, som betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal +adoptere same vilkår for ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith, "The +Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide," +Government Policy Toward Open Source Software +(Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, +American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, +tilgjengelig fra link +#62. Se også Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president, +The Commercial Software Model, diskusjon ved New York +University Stern School of Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra link #63. +
^[203] Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra link #64. -
^[204] +
^[204] -See Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, -210–20. -
^[205] +Se Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, +210–20. +
^[205] -John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, September 2003, -available at link #65; -Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8 September -2003, available at link -#66; Soni Sangha and Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, "Sued for a -Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers," New York -Daily News, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits -Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in -N.Y. Among Defendants," Washington Post, 10 September -2003, E1; Katie Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," Wired -News, 10 September 2003, available at link #67. -
^[206] +John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september 2003, +tilgjengelig fra link +#65; Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8 +september 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #66; Soni Sangha og Phyllis +Furman sammen med Robert Gearty, "Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among +261 Cited as Sharers," New York Daily News, +9. september 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; +Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," +Washington Post, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean, +"Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," Wired News, +10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #67. +
^[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.
Del VI. Etterord
+
Kapittel 17. Etterord
Innholdsfortegnelse
Oss, nå
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
Dem, snart
1. Flere formaliteter
2. Kortere vernetid
3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen
5. Spark en masse advokater
@@ -10249,19 +10260,19 @@ 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 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 privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA -would (we hope) find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to -track you. But for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The -highly inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly -robust 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. -
+Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter 11, 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 +privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope) +find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But +for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly +inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust +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 @@ -10283,7 +10294,7 @@ 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 @@ -10295,7 +10306,7 @@ 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. -
+
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 @@ -10327,10 +10338,11 @@ free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and share software would be fundamentally weakened.
-Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating -system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was -the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's "Linux" kernel was -added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system. +Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt +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.
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 @@ -10403,7 +10415,7 @@ 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 @@ -10411,7 +10423,7 @@ 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. -
Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé
+
Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the increasing control effected through law and technology.
@@ -10465,7 +10477,7 @@ 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 @@ -10517,7 +10529,7 @@ 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.
@@ -10552,7 +10564,7 @@ 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. -
Dem, snart
+
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 @@ -10581,10 +10593,10 @@ and "formalities" are banished.
Why?
-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 +As I suggested in chapter 11, 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 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a @@ -10597,7 +10609,7 @@ 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.
@@ -10673,7 +10685,7 @@ 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 @@ -10723,7 +10735,7 @@ 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 @@ -10759,10 +10771,10 @@ 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. - +
@@ -10804,7 +10816,7 @@ 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. @@ -10812,7 +10824,7 @@ 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 @@ -10826,7 +10838,7 @@ 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 @@ -10847,7 +10859,7 @@ 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 @@ -10884,8 +10896,8 @@ 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 different kinds of sharing: +all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter 6, they enable four +different kinds of sharing:
@@ -10917,10 +10929,10 @@ 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 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 6, 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.
Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere. @@ -10962,7 +10974,7 @@ 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]
@@ -11059,7 +11071,7 @@ 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 @@ -11192,7 +11204,7 @@ 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 @@ -11202,7 +11214,7 @@ 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.
@@ -11252,7 +11264,7 @@ 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. -
Innholdsfortegnelse
17.

^[210] +

^[210] @@ -11263,57 +11275,57 @@ 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 (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at @@ -11341,14 +11353,14 @@ Fisher's proposal is very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's, Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current -debate by about a decade. See link #85. -
^[221] +debate by about a decade. See 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 @@ -11363,8 +11375,8 @@ artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra Rethinking, 174–76. -
Kapittel 17.
Kapittel 18. Notater
+Rethinking, 174–76. +
Kapittel 18. 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 @@ -11429,4 +11441,4 @@ Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet. -
+
Indeks
Symboler
"Country of the Blind, The" (Wells), Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera
A
ABC, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere", Marked: Konsentrasjon
Adobe eBook Reader, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Adromeda, Corrupting Citizens
Agee, Michael, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Aibo robothund, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Akerlof, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Alben, Alex, Kapittel åtte: Omformere, Constraining Innovators
All in the Family, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Allen, Paul, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
Amazon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Anello, Douglas, Kabel-TV
Aristoteles, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Arrow, Kenneth, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
artister
publicity rights on images of, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
ASCAP, "Piratvirksomhet"
AT&T, Introduksjon
Ayer, Don, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
B
Bacon, Francis, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Barish, Stephanie, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Barry, Hank, Constraining Innovators
Beatles, Innspilt musikk
Beckett, Thomas, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Bell, Alexander Graham, Introduksjon
Berlin Act (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
Berman, Howard L., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators
Bern-konvensjonen (1908), Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
Bernstein, Leonard, Piracy II
Betamax, Piracy II
Black, Jane, Piracy II
BMG, Marked: Konsentrasjon
BMW, Constraining Innovators
Boies, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
Bolling, Ruben, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Braithwaite, John, Konklusjon
Brandeis, Louis D., Introduksjon, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Breyer, Stephen, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Bromberg, Dan, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Brown, John Seely, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere", Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Buchanan, James, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Bunyan, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Burdick, Quentin, Kabel-TV
Bush, George W., Constraining Creators
C
Camp Chaos, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), Constraining Innovators
Carson, Rachel, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Casablanca, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Causby, Thomas Lee, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon
Causby, Tinie, Introduksjon, Kapittel tolv: Skader, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II, Konklusjon
CBS, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
chimeras, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera
Christensen, Clayton M., Piracy II, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Clark, Kim B., Marked: Konsentrasjon
CNN, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Coase, Ronald, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
CodePink Women in Peace, Forord, Konklusjon
Coe, Brian, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Comcast, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Commons, John R., Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Creative Commons, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
Crichton, Michael, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Crosskey, William W., Loven: Varighet
D
Daguerre, Louis, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Daley, Elizabeth, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
dataspill, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Day After Trinity, The, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
DDT, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Dean, Howard, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Diller, Barry, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Disney, Inc., Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Drahos, Peter, Piracy I, Konklusjon
Dreyfuss, Rochelle, "Piratvirksomhet"
Drucker, Peter, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
Dylan, Bob, Konklusjon
E
Eagle Forum, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Eastman, George, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere", Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Edison, Thomas, Introduksjon
Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Corrupting Citizens
Erskine, Andrew, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
F
Fallows, James, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Fanning, Shawn, Piracy II
Faraday, Michael, Introduksjon
Fisher, William, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen
Florida, Richard, "Piratvirksomhet"
Forbes, Steve, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
Fried, Charles, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Friedman, Milton, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
G
Garlick, Mia, Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé
Gates, Bill, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett, Konklusjon
General Film Company, Film
Gershwin, George, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Gil, Gilberto, Konklusjon
Goldstein, Paul, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
Gracie Films, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
Grisham, John, Innspilt musikk, 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk
H
Hand, Learned, Radio
Hummer, John, Constraining Innovators
I
Iwerks, Ub, Kapittel en: Skaperne
J
Jaszi, Peter, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Johnson, Lyndon, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Johnson, Samuel, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
K
kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom", Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
L
Lear, Norman, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Licensing Act (1662), Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Liebowitz, Stan, Piracy I, Piracy II, 5. Spark en masse advokater
Linux operating system, Piracy I, Kapittel tretten: Eldred, Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Litman, Jessica, Introduksjon, Constraining Innovators
Lofgren, Zoe, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
Lott, Trent, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Lovett, Lyle, Radio, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II
Lucas, George, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
Lucky Dog, The, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
M
Madonna, Radio, Radio, Piracy II, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, "Piratvirksomhet", "Piratvirksomhet", Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Marijuana Policy Project, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Marx Brothers, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
McCain, John, Marked: Konsentrasjon
MGM, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Microsoft
Windows operating system of, Piracy I
Milton, John, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Movie Archive, Kapittel ni: Samlere
Moyers, Bill, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Müller, Paul Hermann, Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
N
NBC, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Needleman, Rafe, Constraining Innovators
Netanel, Neil Weinstock, Introduksjon, 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen
Nimmer, David, Kapittel åtte: Omformere
P
Paramount Pictures, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Picker, Randal C., Film, Radio, Piracy II, Constraining Innovators
PLoS (Public Library of Science), Konklusjon, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Pogue, David, Forord, Forord
Politikk, (Aristotles), Arkitektur og lov: Makt
S
Safire, William, Forord, Konklusjon
San Francisco Opera, Kapittel sju: Innspillerne
Sarnoff, David, Introduksjon
Schlafly, Phyllis, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
Shakespeare, William, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
Silent Sprint (Carson), Hvorfor Hollywood har rett
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
Stallman, Richard, Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler
Steward, Geoffrey, Kapittel tretten: Eldred
T
Turner, Ted, Konklusjon
Twentieth Century Fox, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
U
Universal Pictures, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"
V
Vaidhyanathan, Siva, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Film, Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne, Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Sammen
veterans' pensions, 2. Kortere vernetid
Vivendi Universal, Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Constraining Innovators, Constraining Innovators
von Lohmann, Fred, Corrupting Citizens
W
Warner Brothers, Kapittel ti: "Eiendom", Arkitektur og lov: Makt, Arkitektur og lov: Makt
Warren, Samuel D., Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Wells, H. G., Kapittel elleve: Chimera, Kapittel elleve: Chimera
Windows, Piracy I
Winer, Dave, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere", Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Winick, Judd, Kapittel en: Skaperne, Kapittel en: Skaperne
WJOA, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Worldcom, Constraining Creators
WRC, Marked: Konsentrasjon
Y
Yanofsky, Dave, Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"
Z
Zimmerman, Edwin, Kabel-TV
Zittrain, Jonathan, "Piratvirksomhet", Loven: Virkeområde
diff --git a/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf b/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf index 5e33a06..d462d0e 100644 Binary files a/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf and b/archive/freeculture.nb.pdf differ diff --git a/progress.png b/progress.png index f16c512..3c31d4c 100644 Binary files a/progress.png and b/progress.png differ diff --git a/stats.txt b/stats.txt index ce96241..3181daa 100644 --- a/stats.txt +++ b/stats.txt @@ -87,3 +87,5 @@ 2012-07-29T0725 616 oversatte meldinger, 916 antatte oversettelser, 244 uoversatte meldinger. 2012-07-29T0947 618 oversatte meldinger, 914 antatte oversettelser, 244 uoversatte meldinger. 2012-07-29T1025 622 oversatte meldinger, 910 antatte oversettelser, 244 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-07-29T2142 639 oversatte meldinger, 896 antatte oversettelser, 242 uoversatte meldinger. +2012-07-29T2243 644 oversatte meldinger, 895 antatte oversettelser, 240 uoversatte meldinger.

CASE	WHOSE VALUE WAS "PIRATED"	RESPONSE OF THE COURTS	RESPONSE OF CONGRESS
Innspillinger	Komponister	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
Radio	Innspillingsartister	N/A	Ingenting
Kabel-TV	Kringkastere	Ingen beskyttelse	Statutory license
VCR	Filmskapere	Ingen beskyttelse	Ingenting