From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:25:48 +0000 (+0200) Subject: More index entries. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~1801 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/f00ce58f655dd2f5d45a419fd7cb8ce8c2eedc5a?ds=inline More index entries. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index bf154a4..e3c59c8 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -5562,6 +5562,7 @@ Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate student?" As Kahle put it,
+Quayle, Dan Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician @@ -9671,6 +9672,7 @@ economic consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was the motive to protect artists against piracy? Alben, Alex +Real Networks 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 @@ -9686,12 +9688,11 @@ the same period of time. And so the attorneys representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, … "How do you come up with a -rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? - Because -here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who -want to pay, and that should establish the market rate, and if you -set the rate so high, you're going to drive the small webcasters out -of business. …" +rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? Because +here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay, and +that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so +high, you're going to drive the small webcasters out of +business. …" And the RIAA experts said, "Well, we don't really model this as an @@ -10521,6 +10522,7 @@ activity, when considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no limit. +Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in United States v. Lopez. The government had @@ -11295,15 +11297,16 @@ favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy. +Rehnquist, William H. -The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One -camp we called "the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." -The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, +The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we +called "the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." The +Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the -five who had supported the Lopez/Morrison line of cases that said that -an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure that Congress's -powers had limits. +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. Breyer, Stephen @@ -11347,28 +11350,28 @@ had consistently argued for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly confident he would recognize limits here. -This analysis of "the Rest" showed most clearly where our focus -had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open -these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single - overriding -argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives' -most important jurisprudential innovation—the argument that Judge -Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power -must be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits. +This analysis of "the Rest" showed most clearly where our focus had to +be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open these +five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single +overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the +Conservatives' most important jurisprudential innovation—the +argument that Judge Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, +that Congress's power must be interpreted so that its enumerated +powers have limits. This then was the core of our strategy—a strategy for which I am responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the Lopez - case, under the government's argument here, Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was that this power was supposed to be "limited." Our aim would be to get the Court to -reconcile Eldred with Lopez: If Congress's power to -regulate commerce was limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to -regulate copyright be limited. +reconcile Eldred with +Lopez: If Congress's power to regulate commerce +was limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright +be limited. The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has @@ -13413,6 +13416,7 @@ well. Free for All (Wayner) Wayner, Peter +Public Enemy These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the @@ -14242,6 +14246,7 @@ uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to do with the content itself. +Real Networks No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of "harm" to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation