^[69] Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, The @@ -2645,12 +2646,12 @@ skaden som denne formen for kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydigheten, slik den har gjort ofte tidligere. -

5.1. Piratvirksomhet I
+
5.1. Piratvirksomhet I
Over hele verden, men spesielt i Asia og Øst-Europa, er det selskaper som ikke gjør annet enn å ta andre folks opphavsrettsbeskyttede innhold, kopierer det og selger det—alt dette uten tillatelse fra opphavsrettseieren. Musikkindustrien estimerer at de taper rundt $4,6 -milliarder hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet ^[70] (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på verdensbasis). MPAA +milliarder hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet ^[70] (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på verdensbasis). MPAA estimerer at de taper $3 milliarder på verdensbasis på piratvirksomhet.
Dette er enkelt og greit piratvirksomhet. Ingenting i argumentet i denne @@ -2685,16 +2686,16 @@ ingen annen nasjon Men likevel, hvis et land skal behandles som selvstendig da er landets lover landets lover, uavhengig av deres kilde. De internasjonale lovene som disse landene lever under gir dem noen muligheter til å slippe unna byrden til -immaterielle rettighetslover.^[71] Etter +immaterielle rettighetslover.^[71] Etter mitt syn burde flere utviklingsland utnytte den muligheten, men når de ikke gjør det bør deres lover likevel respekteres. Og i følge lovene i disse landene, er piratvirksomhet galt. -
+
Alternativt, så kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten ved å legge merke til at det uansett ikke skader industrien. Kineserne som får tilgang til amerikanske CDer for 50 cent pr. utgave er ikke folk som ville kjøpt disse CDene for #15 per utgave. Så ingen har egentlig noe mindre -penger enn de ellers ville hatt.^[72] +penger enn de ellers ville hatt.^[72]
Dette er ofte riktig (selv om jeg har venner som har kjøpt flere tusen piratkopierte DVDer og som helt klart har nok penger til å betale for @@ -2707,7 +2708,7 @@ nettet? fra når du tar en MP3 fra et datanettverk, der det ikke blir en mindre CD som kan selges. Fysikken til røving av det uhåndgripelige er forskjellig fra fysikken til røving av det håndgripelige. -
+
Dette er likevel et veldig dårlig argument. For selv om opphavsretten er en eiendomsrett av en veldig spesiell type, så er det en @@ -2723,7 +2724,7 @@ ikke gj det systemet er skikkelig balansert opp mot teknologien i tiden, så er det galt å ta eiendom uten tillatelse fra eiendomseieren. Det er nøyaktig hva «eiendom» betyr. -
+
Til slutt kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten med argumentet om at piratvirksomheten faktisk hjelper opphavsrettseieren. Når kineserne «stjeler» Windows, så gjør det kineserne avhengig av @@ -2736,7 +2737,7 @@ piratvirksomheten. Hvis kineserne i stedet for brukte det fritt tilgjengelige operativsystemet GNU/Linux, så ville disse kinesiske brukerne ikke til slutt kjøpe Microsoft. Uten piratvirksomheten ville dermed Microsoft tape. -
+
Det er også noe sant i dette argumentet. Å gjøre folk avhengig er en god strategi. Mange selskaper praktiserer det. Noen gjør det godt på grunn av det. Juss-studenter, for eksempel, får gratis tilgang til de to største @@ -2744,7 +2745,7 @@ juridiske databasene. Begge selskapenes markedsf studentene vil bli så vant til deres tjenester at de vil ønske å bruke deres tjeneste og ikke konkurrentens når de blir advokater (og må betale høy abonnementsavgift). -
+
Likevel er ikke dette argumentet spesielt overbevistende. Vi gir ikke alkoholikeren et forsvar når han stjeler sin første øl, kun på grunn av at det vil gjøre det mer sannsynlig at han vil betale for de tre neste. I @@ -2796,21 +2797,21 @@ kunstnerne mens vi gj Nøkkelen til «piratvirksomheten» som loven tar sikte på å skvise er den bruken som «frata forfatteren -overskuddet».^[73] Dette betyr vi må +overskuddet».^[73] Dette betyr vi må avgjøre hvorvidt og hvor mye p2p-deling skader før vi vet hvor sterkt loven bør søke å enten hindre det eller finne et alternativ for å sikre forfatteren hans overskudd. -
+
Peer-to-peer-deling ble gjort berømt av Napster. Men oppfinnerne av Napster-teknologien hadde ikke gjort noen store teknologiske nyskapninger. Som ethvert stort steg i nyskapningen på internettet (og, kan det -argumenteres for, utenfor internettet^[74]) +argumenteres for, utenfor internettet^[74]) hadde Shawn Fanning og hans bemanning ganske enkelt satt sammen deler som hadde blitt utviklet uavhengig av hverandre.
Resultatet var en eksplosjon. Etter lansering i juli 1999, samlet Napster over 10 millioner brukere i løpet av ni måneder. Etter atten måneder var -det nesten 80 millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.^[75] Rettsaker skjøt Napster raskt ned, men andre +det nesten 80 millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.^[75] Rettsaker skjøt Napster raskt ned, men andre tjenester dukket opp for å overta plassen. (Kazaa er for tiden den mest populære p2p-tjenesten. Den skryter av over 100 millioner medlemmer.) Disse tjenestene har en anderledes arkitektur selv om de ikke er veldig @@ -2822,10 +2823,10 @@ eller dine 20 I følge en rekke estimater har en stor andel av amerikanere testet fildelings-teknologi. En studie av Ipsos-Insight i september 2002 estimerte at 60 millioner amerikanere har lastet ned musikk—28 prosent av -amerikanerne over 12.^[76] En +amerikanerne over 12.^[76] En spørreundersøkelse fra NPD-gruppen sitert i The New York Times estimerte at 43 millioner innbyggere brukte -fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.^[77] De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger. Uansett hva +fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.^[77] De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger. Uansett hva de egentlige tallene er, en massiv mengde innhold blir «tatt» på disse nettverkene. Enkelheten og den lave kostnaden til fildelingsnettverkene har inspirert millioner til å nyte musikk på måter de @@ -2842,7 +2843,7 @@ fildeling muliggj Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i fire typer. -
+
Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe @@ -2892,7 +2893,7 @@ Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
La oss starte med noen enkle men viktige poeng. Fra lovens perspektiv er det kun type-D-deling som helt klart er lovlig. Fra et økonomisk perspektiv -er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.^[78] Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler. +er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.^[78] Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler. Type-C-deling er ulovlig, men bra for samfunnet (siden mer eksponering til musikk er bra) og skadelig for artistene (siden verket ellers ikke er tilgjengelig. Så det er vanskelig å avgjøre hvordan deling kommer ut totalt @@ -2910,19 +2911,19 @@ Mens disse tallene jo foresl platebransjen å skylde på teknologi for all nedgang i salg. Historien til kassettopptak er et godt eksempel. Som et studie av Cap Gemini Ernst & Young formulerer det: «I stedet for å utforske denne nye populære -teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.»^[79] Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på kassett var et +teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.»^[79] Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på kassett var et album som ikke ble solgt, og da platesalget falt med 11,4 prosent i 1981, påsto industrien at dets poeng var bevist. Teknologien var problemet, og forbud eller regulering av teknologien var svaret. -
+
Ikke lenge etterpå, og før kongressen fikk muligheten til å innføre reguleringer, ble MTV lansert, og industrien fikk et rekordoppsving. «Til slutt», konkluderte Cap Gemini, «var ikke «krisen» … forårsaket av de som tok opp på kassett—som ikke [sluttet etter at MTV dukket opp]—men hadde i stor grad vært resultatet av en stagnasjon i musikknyskapningen hos de store -selskapene.»^[80] -
+selskapene.»^[80] +
Men det at industrien har tatt feil før betyr ikke at de tar feil i dag. For å evaluere den virkelige trusselen som p2p-deling representerer for industrien spesielt, og samfunnet generelt—eller i hvert fall det @@ -2947,18 +2948,18 @@ CD-er at det ikke er langt unna sannheten.
I 2002 rapporterte RIAA at CD-salg hadde falt med 8,9 prosent, fra 882 millioner til 803 millioner enheter, og inntektene hadde falt 6,7 -prosent.^[81] Dette bekrefter en trend fra +prosent.^[81] Dette bekrefter en trend fra de siste årene. RIAA skylder på piratvirksomhet på internett for denne trenden, selv om det er mange andre årsaker som kan forklare denne reduksjonen. SoundScan rapporterte for eksempel om en reduksjon på over 20 prosent siden 1999 når det gjelder antall CD-er er gitt ut Dette er uten tvil årsaken til noe av nedgangen i salget. Stigende priser kan også ha bidratt til noe av tapet. «Fra 1999 til 201 steg den gjennomsnittlige -prisen for en CD med 7,2 prosent, fra $13,04 til $14,19.»^[82] Konkurranse fra andre typer media kan også forklare +prisen for en CD med 7,2 prosent, fra $13,04 til $14,19.»^[82] Konkurranse fra andre typer media kan også forklare noe av nedgangen. Som Jane Black i BusinessWeek kommenterer, «Lydsporet for filmen High Fidelity har en listepris på $19,98. Du kan få hele filmen [på -DVD] for $19,99.»^[83] +DVD] for $19,99.»^[83]
@@ -2982,7 +2983,7 @@ prosent reduksjon i salg i fjor, ikke e 7 prosents nedgang. Hvis 2,6 ganger antallet solgte CDer ble lastet ned gratis, og salgsinntektene kun ble redusert med 6,7 prosent, så er det en stor forskjell mellom å «laste ned en sang og å stjele en CD». -
+
Dette er skadene—påståtte og muligens overdrevende men, la oss anta at de er reelle. Hva er fordelene? Fildeling påfører muligens kostnader for plateindustrien. Hva slags verdi gir det i tillegg til disse kostnadene? @@ -2990,15 +2991,15 @@ plateindustrien. Hva slags verdi gir det i tillegg til disse kostnadene? En fordel er type-C-deling—å gjøre innhold tilgjengelig som teknisk sett fortsatt er opphavsrettsbeskyttet men som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig. Dette er ikke en liten kategori med innhold Det er millioner -av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.^[84] Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet +av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.^[84] Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet ikke er tilgjengelig fordi artisten som laget innholdet ikke ønsker at det blir gjort tilgjengelig, så er det meste av dette utilgjengelig kun fordi forlaget eller distributøren har bestemt at det ikke lenger gir økonomisk mening for selskapet å gjøre det tilgjengelig. -
+
I den virkelige verden—lenge før internettet—hadde markedet et enkelt svar på dette problemet: bruktbok- og bruktplate-butikker. Det er -tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i Amerika i dag.^[85] Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger +tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i Amerika i dag.^[85] Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger så videre innholdet de kjøpte. Og i følge amerikansk åndsverkslov, når de kjøper og selger dette innholdet, selv om innholdet fortsatt er vernet av åndsverksloven, så får ikke opphavsrettseieren et @@ -3006,7 +3007,7 @@ vernet av tjener penger på innholdet de selger, men på samme måte som med kabel-TV-selskapene før lovbestemt lisensiering må de ikke betale opphavsrettseierene for innholdet de selger. -
+
Type-C-deling har dermed veldig mye til felles med bruktbok- og bruktplatebutikker. Det er naturligvis også veldig forskjellig, fordi personen som gjør innhold tilgjengelig tjener ikke penger på å gjøre @@ -3039,7 +3040,7 @@ eller ikke. Hvis de likte den, s den. Doctorows innhold er type-D-innhold. Hvis delingsnettverkene gjør det mulig å spre hans verk, så kommer både han og samfunnet bedre ut. (Faktisk så kommer de mye bedre ut: det er en god bok!) -
+
Det samme gjelder for allemannseide verk: Denne delingen gagner samfunnet uten noen juridisk skade mot forfattere i det hele tatt. Hvis innsats for å løse problemet med type-A-deling ødelegger muligheten for type-D-deling, så @@ -3072,7 +3073,7 @@ Napster-saken selv. Da Napster fortalte *district*-retten at den hadde utviklet teknologi som ville blokkere for 99,4 prosent av identifisert opphavsrettsbrytende materiale, fortalte *district*-retten advokatene til Napster at 99,4 prosent var ikke godt nok. Napster måtte få -opphavsrettsbruddene «ned til null».^[86] +opphavsrettsbruddene «ned til null».^[86]
Hvis 99,4 prosent ikke er godt nok, så er dette en krig mot fildelingsteknologier, og ikke en krig mot opphavsrettsbrudd. Det er ikke @@ -3091,7 +3092,7 @@ m møte den nye teknologien. I denne justeringen har loven forsøkt å sikre legitime rettigheter til skaperne mens den beskytter nyskapning. Noen gang har det gitt mer rettigheter til skaperne, og noen ganger mindre. -
+
Dermed, slik vi har sett, når «mekanisk reprodusjon» truet interessene til komponister, balanserte kongressen rettighetene til komponistene mot interessene til plateindustrien. Den ga rettigheter til @@ -3107,7 +3108,7 @@ kabel-TV-kringkasterne m svarte kongressen med å gi kringkasterne rett til betaling, men på et nivå fastsatt av loven. De ga på samme måte kabel-TV-selskapene rett til innholdet, så lenge de betalte den lovbestemte prisen. -
+
@@ -3125,7 +3126,7 @@ innhold uten kabel-TV. Dermed valgte kongressen en sti som ville sikre kompensasjon uten å gi fortiden (kringkasterne) kontroll over fremtiden (kabel-TV). -
+
Samme år som kongressen valgte denne balansen, gikk to store produsenter og distributører av filminnhold til sak mot en annen teknologi, videospiller/opptakeren som Sony hadde produsert, Betamax. Disneys og @@ -3136,7 +3137,7 @@ opphavsrettsbrudd. P opphavsrettsbeskyttede filmer og programmer. Sony hadde derfor fordel av opphavsrettsbruddene til sine kunder og skulle derfor, påsto Disney og Universal, være delvis ansvarlig or disse bruddene. -
+
Det er noe i påstandene til Disney og Universal. Sony valgte å utforme sin maskin slik at det var veldig enkelt å ta opp TV-programmer. De kunne ha @@ -3150,29 +3151,29 @@ tillot kopiering. Og i m utformet systemet sitt for å minimere muligheten for opphavsrettsbrudd. Det gjorde de ikke, og på grunn av dette ville Disney og Universal holde dem ansvarlig for arkitekturen de valgte. -
+
MPAA-presidenten Jack Valenti ble studioenes mest synlige forkjemper. Valenti kalte videospillerne for «bendelormer» (engelsk: tapeworm). Han advarte om at «når det er 20, 30, 40 millioner av disse videospillerne i landet, vil vi bli invadert av millioner av «bendelormer» som spiser i vei i hjertet og essensen til den mest verdifulle eiendelen som opphavsrettseieren har, hans -opphavsrett».^[87] «En må ikke +opphavsrett».^[87] «En må ikke være opplært i sofistikert markedsføring eller kreativ vurdering», fortalte han kongressen, «for å forstå ødeleggelsen av etter-kino-markedet forårsaket av de hundrevis av millioner opptak som vil seriøst påvirke fremtiden til det kreative miljøet i dette landet. Det er ganske enkelt et spørsmål om grunnleggende økonomi og enkel sunn -fornuft.»^[88] Og ganske riktig, slik +fornuft.»^[88] Og ganske riktig, slik spørreundersøkelser senere ville vise, 45 prosent av videospillereierne -hadde filmbiblioteker som inneholdt ti filmer eller mer.^[89] — en bruk som retten senere ville avgjøre +hadde filmbiblioteker som inneholdt ti filmer eller mer.^[89] — en bruk som retten senere ville avgjøre ikke var «rettferdig». Ved å «tillate videospillereierne å kopiere fritt ved hjelp av et unntak fra brudd på opphavsrettsloven uten å lage en mekanisme for å kompensere opphavsrettseierne», forklarte Valenti, så ville kongressen «ta fra eierne selve essensen i deres eiendom: den eksklusive retten til a kontrollere hvem som kan bruke deres verker, det vil si, hvem som kan kopiere det og dermed nyte godt at dets -reproduksjon».^[90] +reproduksjon».^[90]
Det tok åtte år før denne saken ble avgjort av høyesterett. I mellomtiden hadde den niende appellsirkel, som har Hollywood i sin @@ -3183,7 +3184,7 @@ muliggjort med deres maskiner. I f kjente teknologien—som Jack Valenti hadde omtalt som «Boston-kveleren for amerikansk filmindustri» (verre enn dette, det var en japansk Boston-kveler for amerikansk -filmindustri)— var en ulovlig teknologi.^[91] +filmindustri)— var en ulovlig teknologi.^[91]
Men høyesterett omstøtte avgjørelsen til niende appellsirkel. Og i sin @@ -3195,16 +3196,16 @@ kongressen n opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale. Kongressen har den konstituelle autoriteten og institusjonsevnen til å ta fullt hensyn til de forskjellige sammensetningene av konkurrerende interesser som uunngåelig blir involvert -av slik ny teknologi.^[92] -
+av slik ny teknologi.^[92] +
Kongressen ble bedt om å svare på avgjørelsen fra Høyesterett. Men på samme måte som med appellen fra plateartistene om radiokringkastinger, ignorerte kongressen denne forespørselen. Kongressen var overbevist om at Amerikansk film fikk nok, på tross av at det her ble «tatt». Hvis vi samler disse saken, trer et mønster frem: -
Tilfelle Hvems verdi ble «røvet» Responsen til domstolene Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger Komponister Ingen beskyttelse Lovbestemt lisens
Radio Plateartister N/A Ingenting
Kabel-TV Kringkastere Ingen beskyttelse Lovbestemt lisens
Videospiller / opptaker Filmskapere Ingen beskyttelse Ingenting
+
Tilfelle Hvems verdi ble «røvet» Responsen til domstolene Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger Komponister Ingen beskyttelse Lovbestemt lisens
Radio Plateartister N/A Ingenting
Kabel-TV Kringkastere Ingen beskyttelse Lovbestemt lisens
Videospiller / opptaker Filmskapere Ingen beskyttelse Ingenting
I hvert tilfelle gjennom vår historie har ny teknologi endret hvordan -innhold ble distribuert.^[93] I hvert +innhold ble distribuert.^[93] I hvert tilfelle, gjennom hele vår historie, har den endringen ført til at noen ble «gratispassasjer» på noen andres verk.
@@ -3220,7 +3221,7 @@ hensyn til noe av legitimiteten til oppf teknologi a ha fordel av innhold laget tidligere. Den balanserte interessene på spill. -
+
Når du tenker over disse eksemplene, og de andre eksemplene som utgjør de første fire kapittelene i denne avdelingen, så gir denne balansen mening. Var Walt Disney en pirat? Ville doujinshi være bedre hvis skaperne måtte be @@ -3230,11 +3231,11 @@ var regulert? Er det virkelig riktig at a bygge en s deg for krav om $15 millioner i erstatning. Ville det ha vært bedre om Edison hadde kontrollert all film? Burde et hvert cover-band måtte hyre inn en advokat for å få tillatelse til å spille inn en sang? -
+
Vi kunne svart ja på hvert av disse spørsmålene, men vår tradisjon har svart nei. I vår tradisjon, som høyesterett uttalte har opphavsretten «aldri gitt opphavsrettseieren fullstendig kontroll over all mulig -bruk av hans verk».^[94] I stedet har +bruk av hans verk».^[94] I stedet har de spesifikke bruksområder som loven regulerer vært definert ved å balansere de goder som kommer fra å dele ut en eksklusiv rettighet mot ulempene en slik eksklusiv rettighet skaper. Og denne balanseringen har historisk vært @@ -3262,7 +3263,7 @@ ideelt effektivt for nettverk. Utviklet videre så kan de gjøre nettverkene mye mer effektivt. Likevel kan disse «potensielle fordelene for folket», som John Schwartz skriver i The New York Times, «bli -forsinket av p2p-kampen».^[95] +forsinket av p2p-kampen».^[95]
Men når noen begynner å snakke om «balanse», kommer opphavsrettskrigerne med et annet argument. @@ -3278,7 +3279,7 @@ arresterer han? «Det er vår eiendom,» insisterer krigerne. «og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen eiendom er beskyttet.» -

^[70] +

^[70] Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), @@ -3286,7 +3287,7 @@ Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #14. Se også Ben Hunt, «Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk», Financial Times, 14. februar 2003, 11. -
^[71] +
^[71] Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New Press, 2003), @@ -3302,8 +3303,8 @@ ikke-kommersielle form tillatelse fra patentinnehaveren. Utviklingsland kan være i stand til å bruke dette til å få fordelene fra utenlandske patenter til lavere priser. Dette er en lovende strategi for utviklingsland innenfor -TRIPS-rammeverket. -
^[72] +TRIPS-rammeverket. +
^[72] For en analyse av den økonomiske effekten av kopieringsteknologi, se Stan Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy (New York: @@ -3312,15 +3313,15 @@ av piratvirksomhet p verdien av verket vil være neglisjerbart. Et åpenbart tilfelle er der individet som tar nyter godt av piratvirksomheten ikke ville ha kjøpt originalen selv om piratvirksomhet ikke var en mulighet.» Ibid., -149. -
^[73] +149. +
^[73] Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777). -
^[74] +
^[74] - Se Clayton M. Christensen, + Se Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen undersøker hvorfor selskaper som gir opphav @@ -3329,8 +3330,8 @@ de mest kreative, paradigmeskiftende m på. Denne jobben ender som oftest opp hos oppfinnere utenfra, som setter sammen eksisterende teknologi på nyskapende måter. For en diskusjon om Christensens idéer, se Lawrence Lessig, Future, -89–92, 139. -
^[75] +89–92, 139. +
^[75] Se Carolyn Lochhead, «Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood @@ -3342,7 +3343,7 @@ Chronicle, 23. mai 2003, C1; Call,» Economist, 24. juni 2000, 23; John Naughton, «Hollywood at War with the Internet» (London) Times, 26. juli 2002, 18. -
^[76] +
^[76] @@ -3350,18 +3351,18 @@ Se Ipsos-Insight, TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music Distribution (september 2002), som rapporterer at 28 prosent av amerikanere eldre enn tolv år hadde lastet musikk ned fra internettet og 30 prosent hadde lyttet til digitale musikkfiler lagred på sine datamaskiner. -
^[77] +
^[77] Amy Harmon, «Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,» New York Times, 6. juni 2003, A1. -
^[78] +
^[78] Se Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy, -148–49. -
^[79] +148–49. +
^[79] - Se Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, + Se Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model Crisis (2003), 3. Denne rapporten beskriver musikkindustriens innsats for å stigmatisere den voksende praksis med å ta opp på kassett på @@ -3373,11 +3374,11 @@ prosent av forbrukerne eldre enn ti tatt opp musikk p 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, oktober 1989), -145–56.
^[80] +145–56.
^[80] U.S. Congress, Copyright and Home Copying, 4. -
^[81] +
^[81] Se Recording Industry Association of America, 2002 Yearend @@ -3393,14 +3394,14 @@ siste verdensbasis har gått ned fra å være en $39 milliarders industri i 2000 til å bli en $32 milliarders industri i 2002 (basert på US dollarverdi for utsendinger.» -
^[82] +
^[82] Jane Black, «Big Music's Broken Record», BusinessWeek online, -13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #17. -
^[83] +13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #17. +
^[83] ibid. -
^[84] +
^[84] Et estimat forteller at 75 prosent av musikken gitt ut av de store @@ -3409,9 +3410,9 @@ Copyright Law—Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You: H the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107. kongr., 1. sesj. (3. april 2001) (forberedt innlegg av the Future of Music Coalition), tilgjengelig fra link #18. -
^[85] +
^[85] - Mens det ikke finnes noen gode + Mens det ikke finnes noen gode estimater over antallet bruktplatebutikker, så var det i 2002 7 7198 bruktbokhandler i USA, en økning på 20 prosent siden 1993. Se Book Hunter Press, The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book @@ -3419,7 +3420,7 @@ Market (2002), tilgjengelig fra «2002 Annual Survey Results», tilgjengelig fra link #20. -
^[86] +
^[86] Se referat fra forhandlingene, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation ved 34-35 @@ -3428,38 +3429,38 @@ tilgjengelig fra 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): høring om S. 1758 foran the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97. kongr., 1. and 2. sess., 459 (1982) (vitnesbyrd fra Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.). -
^[88] +
^[88] Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475. -
^[89] +
^[89] Universal City Studios, Inc. mot Sony Corp. of America, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979). -
^[90] +
^[90] Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (vitnesbyrd fra Jack Valenti). -
^[91] +
^[91] Universal City Studios, Inc. mot Sony Corp. of America, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981). -
^[92] +
^[92] Sony Corp. of America mot Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984). -
^[93] +
^[93] Dette er de viktigste forekomstene i vår historie, men det er også andre tilfeller. For eksempel var teknologien til digitale lydkasetter (DAT) @@ -3472,13 +3473,13 @@ U.S.C. for gratispassasjerer slik jeg har beskrevet. Se Lessig Future, 71. Se også Picker, «From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,» University of Chicago Law -Review 70 (2003): 293–96. -

^[94] +Review 70 (2003): 293–96. +

^[94] Sony Corp. of America mot Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, (1984). -

^[95] +

^[95] John Schwartz, «New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software @@ -3503,7 +3504,7 @@ piknik-bordet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg n jeg tar den gode idéen som du hadde om å plassere piknik-bordet i bakhagen—ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears, kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da? -

Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og idéer er ting, selv om det er en viktig forskjell. Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige tilfelle—faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset @@ -3513,8 +3514,8 @@ ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt s Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer hvordan noen andre kler seg), «Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv informasjon uten å ta noe fra meg, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys -fra min veike får lys uten å forlate meg i mørket».^[96] -
+fra min veike får lys uten å forlate meg i mørket».^[96] +
Unntakene til fri bruk er idéer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil diskutere her. Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten @@ -3523,7 +3524,7 @@ min tillatelse: Loven gj Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form—detaljene, med andre ord—betyr noe. For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å -plassere denne «eiendom» i sin rette sammenheng.^[97] +plassere denne «eiendom» i sin rette sammenheng.^[97]
Min strategi for å gjøre dette er den samme som min strategi i den foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere @@ -3533,13 +3534,13 @@ Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne utsagnet—«opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom»— bli litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå. -

^[96] +

^[96] Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6 (Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34. -
^[97] +
^[97] Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle @@ -3550,7 +3551,7 @@ immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er materielt. Se Adam Mossoff, «What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,» Arizona Law Review 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241. -
Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne
+

Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne

William Shakespeare skrev Romeo og Julie i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han @@ -3560,30 +3561,30 @@ fortsatt kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: «Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.» -
+
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 +utgiver i London, John Tonson. ^[98] Tonson var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt «the -Conger»^[99], som kontrollerte +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 klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet. -
+
Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som «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 tilleggsår.^[100] På +en ekstraperiode på 22 tilleggsår.^[100] På grunn av denne loven, så skulle Romeo og Julie ha falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i 1774? -
+
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 @@ -3634,7 +3635,7 @@ skuespill. S Shakespeares verk uten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner finnes for å tillate at noen «stjeler» Shakespeares verk? -
+
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da «Statute of Anne» ble vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne. @@ -3651,7 +3652,7 @@ verk kunne brukes. Idag inkluderer retten samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og så videre. -
+
Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende, betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den @@ -3659,7 +3660,7 @@ ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt lov til å lage filmer. «Kopi-retten» var bare en eksklusiv rett til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer. -
+
Selv denne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt en lang og stygg erfaring med «eksklusive rettigheter», spesielt «enerett» gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde @@ -3688,7 +3689,7 @@ undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot 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] +nødvendig.»^[101]
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap, var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste @@ -3720,7 +3721,7 @@ 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» @@ -3734,30 +3735,30 @@ utl de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om «Statute of Anne» sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de, var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne. -

+
Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntil 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 +bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.»^[103] Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolprofitten 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 +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] +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 +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. @@ -3766,13 +3767,13 @@ Londons bokselgere begynte straks Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren i kampen mellom Millar og Taylor. -
+
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James Thomsons dikt «The Seasons». Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom «Statute of Anne», men etter at denne beskyttelsen var utløpt, 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] +«Statute of Anne» 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 @@ -3793,13 +3794,13 @@ 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 @@ -3836,7 +3837,7 @@ en allmenn oppfatning om at 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. +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 @@ -3845,7 +3846,7 @@ piratutgiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgj 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] +*illuminations*.»^[110]
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i motsatt retning. Morning Chronicle skrev: @@ -3855,7 +3856,7 @@ er blitt redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte, og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø -familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.^[111] +familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.^[111]

@@ -3876,13 +3877,13 @@ beundret. Valg i en konkurrerende sammenheng

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 + Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke«ferdige versjoner» av klassiske verk. I tillegg til Romeo og Julie, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er @@ -3890,25 +3891,25 @@ hjertet av den engelske 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 + Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en «åndsverkslov». Se Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 40. -
^[101] +
^[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 @@ -3918,44 +3919,44 @@ 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 + 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 en fascinerende fremstilling, se David Saunders, Authorship and Copyright (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69. -
^[105] +
^[105] Mark Rose, Authors and Owners (Cambridge: Harvard -University Press, 1993), 92. -
^[106] +University Press, 1993), 92. +
^[106] Ibid., 93. -
^[107] +
^[107] - Lyman Ray Patterson, + Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective, 167 (der Borwell blir sitert). -
^[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. @@ -3973,7 +3974,7 @@ I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var p *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på -scenen. +scenen.
Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I @@ -3988,14 +3989,14 @@ med The Simpson. For disse f beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er «rimelig bruk» eller det foreligger spesielle avtaler. -
+
Else kontaktet Simpson-skaper Matt Groenings kontor for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer programmet. -
+
Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i @@ -4008,7 +4009,7 @@ Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk. Fox «ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig Simpson som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.» -
+
Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at «det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på @@ -4024,7 +4025,7 @@ om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbl å si «Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.» En av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at «De bryr seg ikke i det hele tatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.» -
+
Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på @@ -4050,7 +4051,7 @@ det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10 eller $1 rett ifølge loven.
Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres -første tanke «rimelig bruk».^[112] Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en +første tanke «rimelig bruk».^[112] Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en Simpsons-episode er et klart eksempel på «rimelig bruk» av The Simpsons— og «rimelig bruk» krever ingen tillatelse fra noen. @@ -4074,7 +4075,7 @@ F «visual cue sheet» med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på «fair use», og å påstå at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen. -
+
Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste @@ -4114,7 +4115,7 @@ Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke. -

^[112] +

^[112] Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er «fair @@ -4122,7 +4123,7 @@ use A. Posner og William F. Patry, «Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred » (utkast arkivert hos forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003. -
Kapittel åtte: Omformerne
+
Kapittel åtte: Omformerne
I 1993 var Alex Alben en jurist som arbeidet hos Starwave Inc. Starwave var et innovativt firma grunnlagt av Paul Allen, som også hadde vært med på å grunnlegge Microsoft.Starwaves mål @@ -4164,7 +4165,7 @@ Alben tok ideen videre til Michael Slade, leder for Starwave. Slade spurte Alben svarte, «Tja, vi må innhente tillatelse fra alle som opptrer i disse filmene, for musikken og for alt annet som er i disse filmklippene.» Slade svarte «Flott! Gjør -det.»^[113] +det.»^[113]
Problemet var at verken Alben eller Slade forstod hva det innebar å innhente disse tillatelsene. Alle skuespillerne i hver av filmene kunne ha krav på @@ -4189,7 +4190,7 @@ tiden p identifisere, siden det ofte er vanskelig å vite hvem som er skuespilleren og hvem som er stuntmannen i Eastwoods filmer. Og deretter samlet vi oss en gjeng og begynte å ringe rundt. -
+
Noen skuespillere var glade for å kunne hjelpe — Donald Sutherland fulgte for eksempel opp saken personlig for å sørge for at alt var greit. Andre brydde seg mest om pengene. Alben kunne spørre «Hei, kan @@ -4218,12 +4219,12 @@ gikk vi systematisk igjennom det og fikk tak i rettighetene. Og produktet ble uten tvil særdeles godt. Eastwood elsket det og det solgte veldig godt. -
+
Men jeg spurte Alben om hvor merkelig det syntes at det skulle ta et helt år bare å få orden på rettigheter. Alben hadde gjort det hele svært effektivt, men som Peter Drucker så berømmelig har sagt «Det er ikke noe som er så ubrukelig å gjøre effektivt enn det som egentlig ikke gjøres i det hele -tatt.»^[114] Var det noe fornuft i at +tatt.»^[114] Var det noe fornuft i at det var slik et nye verk skulle skapes, spurte jeg Alben.
For, som han innrømmet, «veldig få ... har tid og ressurser, og ikke @@ -4267,7 +4268,7 @@ rikeste investorene i verden. Derfor hadde han myndighet og ressurser som en gjennomsnittlig webdesigner ikke kunne drømme om. Så hvis det tok ham et år, hvor lang tid ville det ta noen andre? Og hvor mye kreativitet får aldri form på grunn av kostnadene rundt å kartlegge og skaffe rettigheter? -
+
Disse kostnadene er byrdene av en form for regulering. Vi kan prøve å ta på oss en republikanerhatt og bli sinte for et øyeblikk. Staten styrer disse rettighetenes dekningsområde, og dekningsområdet bestemmer hvor mye det vil @@ -4278,7 +4279,7 @@ Fracisco.) Disse rettighetene gav sikkert mening en gang, men n forholdene har endret seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en veltrenet, reguleringsfiendtlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre «Gir dette mening nå?» -
+
Jeg har sett glimt av gjenkjennelse på dette punktet, men bare noen få ganger. Første gang var på en konferanse for føderale dommere i @@ -4291,14 +4292,14 @@ 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?» -
+
Og selvsagt hadde ikke disse to briljante talentene gjort hva Alben hadde gjort. De hadde ikke ordnet alle rettighetene til klippene de brukte. Rent teknisk hadde de brutt loven. Men ingen kom til å straffeforfølge disse to @@ -4315,7 +4316,7 @@ dagens teknologi. Alle som lager presentasjoner vet hvilken eksepsjonell frihet internettets «klippe og lime»-arkitektur gir—på et sekund kan du finne akkurat det bildet du vil ha, og du kan få den inn i presentasjonen din. -
+
Men presentasjoner er bare en liten begynnelse. Ved hjelp av internett og dets arkiver, er musikere i stand til å sy sammen nye lydmikser som ingen @@ -4387,20 +4388,20 @@ bruk ordne med rettighetene du trenger, slik at du slipper å stole på rimelig bruk. I begge tilfeller er den kreative prosessen blitt en prosess med å betale jurister—igjen, et privilegium forbeholdt de få. -

^[113] +

^[113] Teknisk sett var rettighetene som Alben måtte klarere i hovedsak de om publisitet—rettigheten en artist har til å kontrollere den kommersielle utnyttelsen av sitt bilde. Men disse rettighetene belaster også «rip, miks, brenn»-kreativiteten slik dette kapittelet -demonstrerer. -
^[114] +demonstrerer. +
^[114] U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition, tilgjengelig fra link #22. -
Kapittel ni: Samlere
+

Kapittel ni: Samlere
In April 1996, millions of «bots»—computer codes designed to «spider,» or automatically search the Internet and copy content—began running @@ -4409,7 +4410,7 @@ onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them. -
+
By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a @@ -4433,13 +4434,13 @@ way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library—constantly updated, without any reliable memory. -
+
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 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts @@ -4474,7 +4475,7 @@ a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it was growing at about a billion pages a month. -
+
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human history. At the end of 2002, it held «two hundred and thirty terabytes of material»—and was «ten times larger than the Library @@ -4490,7 +4491,7 @@ very low fee. unavailable,» Kahle told me. «If you were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate student?» As Kahle put it, -
+
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a @@ -4499,7 +4500,7 @@ study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges between the two, the 60 Minutes episode that came out after it … it would be almost impossible. … Those materials are almost unfindable. … -
+
Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers @@ -4512,7 +4513,7 @@ copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in libraries. These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work. -
+
These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the @@ -4520,7 +4521,7 @@ deposits—for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and «borrowed back.» Thus, when the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The copy exists—if it exists at all—in the library archive of the -film company.^[116] +film company.^[116]
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts, @@ -4531,7 +4532,7 @@ they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand them. The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible to anyone who would look. -
+
Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from @@ -4540,7 +4541,7 @@ working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week of September 11 available free on-line. Anyone could see how news reports from around the world covered the events of that day. -
+
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose archive of film includes close to 45,000 «ephemeral films» (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never @@ -4584,9 +4585,9 @@ day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge 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 @@ -4622,7 +4623,7 @@ The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle describes, -
+
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music. Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies, … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the @@ -4634,7 +4635,7 @@ different life, based on this, is … thrilling. It could be one of the things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing press. -
+
Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of @@ -4655,14 +4656,14 @@ these 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 + The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House 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 @@ -4670,16 +4671,16 @@ the Library of Congress, 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 + Dave Barns, «Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,» Chicago Tribune, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, «The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,» Boston College Law Review 44 (2003): 593 n. 51. -

Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»

Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration—literally. The @@ -4687,7 +4688,7 @@ 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. -

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 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism. The @@ -4727,7 +4728,7 @@ 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 @@ -4751,7 +4752,7 @@ tradition, at least in Washington.

While «creative property» is certainly «property» in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to -understand,^[119] it has never been the case, +understand,^[119] it has never been the case, nor should it be, that «creative property owners» have been «accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property owners.» Indeed, if creative property owners were given the @@ -4817,7 +4818,7 @@ differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively arguing for a change in our Constitution itself. -

Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong. There was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong. The Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed @@ -4833,7 +4834,7 @@ try to understand why. Why did the framer property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for creative property there must be a public domain? -

To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of these «creative property» rights, and the control that they enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been @@ -4868,8 +4869,8 @@ 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 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against @@ -4878,7 +4879,7 @@ ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh, though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement. -

The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms—it is @@ -4886,7 +4887,7 @@ property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally; it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms, and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave. -

Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously, «architecture»—the physical world as one finds it—is a constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your @@ -4915,7 +4916,7 @@ are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in particular interact. -

So, for example, consider the «freedom» to drive a car at a high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is @@ -4931,7 +4932,7 @@ 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 @@ -4941,12 +4942,12 @@ reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be more strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast driving. -

Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.

These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one -modality might be displaced by another.^[121] +modality might be displaced by another.^[121]

10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett

The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the @@ -4954,7 +4955,7 @@ courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes sense.

Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet: -

Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.

There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law @@ -4991,7 +4992,7 @@ effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques, (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright. -

This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by @@ -5012,14 +5013,14 @@ innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its «architecture of revenue.» -

But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the government should intervene to support that old way of doing business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital -cameras.^[122] Does anyone believe the +cameras.^[122] Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks from roads for the purpose of protecting the @@ -5030,7 +5031,7 @@ it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?) -

The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no. In a free society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade, the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against @@ -5038,7 +5039,7 @@ 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 @@ -5074,7 +5075,7 @@ deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect of the changes the content industry wants.

Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet. -

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 @@ -5084,7 +5085,7 @@ 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 @@ -5097,11 +5098,11 @@ were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to 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 @@ -5125,7 +5126,7 @@ for creativity.

In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost. -

10.2. Opphav

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 @@ -5189,13 +5190,13 @@ 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 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain to reprint and distribute works. -

That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections. Just @@ -5214,7 +5215,7 @@ 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 @@ -5226,11 +5227,11 @@ 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 @@ -5290,7 +5291,7 @@ dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the average term of copyright is now the maximum term. In thirty years, then, -the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.^[129] +the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.^[129]

10.4. Loven: Virkeområde

The «scope» of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those @@ -5360,7 +5361,7 @@ 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.

@@ -5411,16 +5412,16 @@ 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 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called @@ -5435,7 +5436,7 @@ 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]

@@ -5453,7 +5454,7 @@ be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of -copyright automatically applies,^[134] +copyright automatically applies,^[134] because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright law. @@ -5480,7 +5481,7 @@ therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first diagram on next page). -

Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som «rimelig bruk». @@ -5502,9 +5503,9 @@ In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three 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 @@ -5524,7 +5525,7 @@ nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every night before you went to bed. None of those instances of use—reading— could be regulated by copyright law because none of those uses produced a copy. -

But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or only once a month, then copyright law would aid the @@ -5567,7 +5568,7 @@ about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet, reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before because reading was not regulated. -

This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair use—never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in @@ -5581,7 +5582,7 @@ business of making available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores. -

The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews. The idea was to expand their «selling by sampling» technique by @@ -5619,7 +5620,7 @@ court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without Disney's permission. -

Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how @@ -5631,7 +5632,7 @@ Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction. -

No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control @@ -5664,16 +5665,16 @@ 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 +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. @@ -5690,7 +5691,7 @@ 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 @@ -5721,13 +5722,13 @@ text to the clipboard.) I also have the permission to print ten pages from the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer. -

Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen): Aristoteles Politikk.

Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles «Politikk»

According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book. -

Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".

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

Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for «The Future of Ideas».

@@ -5739,7 +5740,7 @@ Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls control how you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright owner certainly does have the power—up to the limits of the copyright law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright -power.^[138] When my e-book of +power.^[138] When my e-book of Middlemarch says I have the permission to copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the @@ -5759,7 +5760,7 @@ same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud button to read my book aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply won't read aloud. -

These are controls, not permissions. Imagine a world @@ -5812,13 +5813,13 @@ disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no. -

The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative 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.

@@ -5840,7 +5841,7 @@ differently. So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer «dog» to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com). -

If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word hack has a particularly unfriendly connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror @@ -5864,7 +5865,7 @@ 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 @@ -5876,7 +5877,7 @@ be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines that the owner of aibopet.com thought, What possible problem could there be with teaching a robot dog to dance? -

Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show— not literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and @@ -5887,7 +5888,7 @@ 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. @@ -5932,7 +5933,7 @@ hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote: Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. -

And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an RIAA lawyer that read: @@ -5968,7 +5969,7 @@ the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation. -

Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance @@ -5986,7 +5987,7 @@ system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling others to infringe others' copyright. -

The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled @@ -5994,7 +5995,7 @@ consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka «Mr. Rogers,» for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' -Neighborhood. +Neighborhood.

Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the «Neighborhood» at hours when some children cannot use it. I @@ -6009,7 +6010,7 @@ whole approach in broadcasting has always been 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] +important.^[140]

@@ -6018,7 +6019,7 @@ that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR responsible.

This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA. - +

No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.

@@ -6034,14 +6035,14 @@ A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses. -

Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.

The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: No one ever died from copyright circumvention. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. -

The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the @@ -6075,14 +6076,14 @@ 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 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you wished without fear of legal control. -

But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find @@ -6130,15 +6131,15 @@ 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 +sources.»^[142] The five recording labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music -Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.^[143] The «five largest cable companies pipe +Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.^[143] The «five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers -nationwide.»^[144] +nationwide.»^[144]

The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the @@ -6149,7 +6150,7 @@ radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising revenues. -

Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today, there are six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's @@ -6162,7 +6163,7 @@ 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 @@ -6172,7 +6173,7 @@ the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical distribution system through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that -system will serve the same function in the United States.^[145] +system will serve the same function in the United States.^[145]

The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many @@ -6192,7 +6193,7 @@ 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 @@ -6203,7 +6204,7 @@ 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]

@@ -6223,18 +6224,18 @@ new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.» «In 1992, 16 new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was -one.»^[147] In 2002, 75 percent of +one.»^[147] In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. «In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent -studios decreased 63%.»^[148] -

+studios decreased 63%.»^[148] +

Today, another Norman Lear with another All in the Family would find that he had the choice either to make the show less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is increasingly owned by the network. -

Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,

@@ -6243,7 +6244,7 @@ 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 @@ -6254,16 +6255,16 @@ feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of consequence—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a democracy. -

Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the «Innovator's Dilemma»: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business. The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural -trends.^[150] Lumbering giants not only +trends.^[150] Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants, -there will be far too little sprinting. +there will be far too little sprinting.

I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies @@ -6327,7 +6328,7 @@ 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 @@ -6337,7 +6338,7 @@ positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about. -

10.8. Sammen

There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright warriors that the government should «protect my property.» In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No @@ -6400,7 +6401,7 @@ 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. @@ -6462,7 +6463,7 @@ The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course copyright is a kind of «property,» and of course, as with any property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property -rights^[153]) has been crafted to balance +rights^[153]) has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always been struck in light of new technologies. And for almost half of our @@ -6470,7 +6471,7 @@ tradition, the all the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture. -

We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on the scope of the interests protected by «property.» The very @@ -6497,7 +6498,7 @@ 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, @@ -6505,7 +6506,7 @@ 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 @@ -6516,7 +6517,7 @@ best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of «lawyer talk,» see Bruce Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27. -

^[120] +

^[120] By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean @@ -6527,7 +6528,7 @@ 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 @@ -6555,9 +6556,9 @@ making access to those places easier; 42 United States Code, section 12101 (2000). Each of these interventions to change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand -the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. - -

^[122] +the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. + +

^[122] See Geoffrey Smith, «Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a @@ -6566,26 +6567,26 @@ analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, «Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?» Forbes.com, 6 October 2003, available at link #24. -

^[123] +

^[123] Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71. -

^[124] +

^[124] 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] +(emphasis added). +

^[126] Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to @@ -6601,7 +6602,7 @@ 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 @@ -6612,17 +6613,17 @@ 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 @@ -6631,19 +6632,19 @@ Journal of International Law and Politics 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987). -

^[131] +

^[131] Jonathan Zittrain, «The Copyright Cage», Legal -Affairs, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. -

^[132] +Affairs, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra link #26. +

^[132] Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the First Amendment) between mere «copies» and derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, «The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,» Yale Law Journal 112 -(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). -

^[133] +(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). +

^[133] This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly @@ -6655,14 +6656,14 @@ doesn't make a copy; 17 United States Code, section presumption under the existing law (which regulates «copies;» 17 United States Code, section 102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right. -

^[134] +

^[134] Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology. -

^[135] +

^[135] I don't mean «nature» in the sense that it couldn't be @@ -6670,16 +6671,16 @@ different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number of copies remain. -

^[136] +

^[136] Se David Lange, «Recognizing the Public Domain», Law and Contemporary Problems 44 (1981): 172–73. -

^[137] +

^[137] - Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, + Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 1–3. -

^[138] +

^[138] In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for @@ -6688,7 +6689,7 @@ 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 @@ -6701,42 +6702,42 @@ Concerns, «Is the RIAA Running Scared?» Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, «Frequently Asked Questions about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA -Legal Case,» available at link #27. -

^[140] +Legal Case,» available at link #27. +

^[140] - Sony Corporation of + Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), -270–71. -

^[141] +270–71. +

^[141] For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, «Legal Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,» Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1997): 651. -

^[142] +

^[142] FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003) (statement -of Senator John McCain).

^[143] +of Senator John McCain).

^[143] Lynette Holloway, «Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,» New York Times, 23 December 2002. -

^[144] +

^[144] Molly Ivins, «Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,» Charleston Gazette, 31 May 2003. -

^[145] +

^[145] James Fallows, «The Age of Murdoch», Atlantic -Monthly (September 2003): 89. -

^[146] +Monthly (September 2003): 89. +

^[146] Leonard Hill, «The Axis of Access,» remarks before Weidenbaum @@ -6744,7 +6745,7 @@ Center Forum, 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 @@ -6753,18 +6754,18 @@ sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at link #30. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003. -

^[148] +

^[148] ibid. -

^[149] +

^[149] «Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation», Now with Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift tilgjengelig fra link #31. -

^[150] +

^[150] Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The @@ -6777,7 +6778,7 @@ 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 @@ -6802,26 +6803,26 @@ 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 + Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans «fire kapitulasjoner» for åndsverksloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. -

^[153] +

^[153] It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, «The Disintegration of Property,» in Nomos XXII: Property, J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, -1980). +1980).

Del III. Nøtter

Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster

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 extraordinarily +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 opportunity. «In @@ -6882,7 +6883,7 @@ DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. «But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the scene. …» -

Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have @@ -6917,7 +6918,7 @@ into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,» that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. - +

@@ -6942,9 +6943,9 @@ 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 @@ -6996,25 +6997,25 @@ turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers, both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting -everyone's interests.^[156] +everyone's interests.^[156]

In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of «the major labels.» Its position on these matters has now -changed. +changed.

Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable. -

^[154] +

^[154] H. G. Wells, «The Country of the Blind» (1904, 1911). Se H. G. Wells, The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). -

^[155] +

^[155] - For an excellent summary, see the + For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, «Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,» 27 June 2003, available at link #33. Reps. John Conyers @@ -7041,8 +7042,8 @@ 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] +#36. +

^[156] WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital @@ -7067,12 +7068,12 @@ 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» still has play. -

There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe @@ -7120,7 +7121,7 @@ politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is presumptively illegal. -

That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the @@ -7130,14 +7131,14 @@ 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? -

The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative @@ -7150,10 +7151,10 @@ the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a world of underground art—not because the message is necessarily political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of «illegal -art» tour the United States.^[159] In +art» tour the United States.^[159] In what does their «illegality» consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective. -

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 @@ -7162,7 +7163,7 @@ 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 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the @@ -7235,7 +7236,7 @@ pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by substituting «free market» every place I've spoken of «free culture.» The point is the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more fundamental. -

The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course, concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at a minimum, we @@ -7246,7 +7247,7 @@ just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect themselves against the competitors of tomorrow. -

This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy that I described in chapter 10. The consequence of this massive threat of liability @@ -7261,14 +7262,14 @@ Valley—has been learned. Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in The Future of Ideas and which has progressed in a way that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted. -

In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from the creators. -

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 @@ -7291,7 +7292,7 @@ opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product, by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content the users liked. -

To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music, but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a @@ -7328,11 +7329,11 @@ 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 @@ -7343,13 +7344,13 @@ 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 @@ -7372,7 +7373,7 @@ only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity. -
+
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair use. Whatever the «real» law is, realism about the effect of law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation @@ -7413,17 +7414,17 @@ distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content. One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables «piracy,» then, this response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet. -
+
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected -or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to +or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.^[162] Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory «broadcast flag» that would be required on any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt -down copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163] +down copyright violators and disable their machines.^[163]
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why @@ -7431,10 +7432,10 @@ not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but 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.
@@ -7446,10 +7447,10 @@ Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of 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 +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 @@ -7461,12 +7462,12 @@ 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. -
+
@@ -7505,7 +7506,7 @@ because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio. -
+
@@ -7527,11 +7528,11 @@ 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 @@ -7555,9 +7556,9 @@ 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 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station) would have to collect the following data from every listening @@ -7625,7 +7626,7 @@ 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, @@ -7640,12 +7641,12 @@ 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. …» -
+
And the RIAA experts said, «Well, we don't really model this as an industry with thousands of webcasters, we think it should be an industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate and it's a stable, predictable market.» (Emphasis added.) -

Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to @@ -7665,7 +7666,7 @@ 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 @@ -7684,14 +7685,14 @@ 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 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose. -
+
Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5 @@ -7699,16 +7700,16 @@ gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number -were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war +were criminals.^[173] We have launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7 -percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of +percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.^[174] That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system -that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.^[175] We pride ourselves on our «free +that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.^[175] We pride ourselves on our «free society,» but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law. -
+
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students about the importance of «ethics.» As my colleague Charlie @@ -7782,7 +7783,7 @@ copy-protection technologies, I am 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 @@ -7811,7 +7812,7 @@ protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were part of a massively complex «digital rights management» system. -
+
If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were @@ -7847,7 +7848,7 @@ It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming; but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and important as our tradition of free culture. -
+
There's one more aspect to this corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation @@ -7855,7 +7856,7 @@ attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the 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,
@@ -7887,12 +7888,12 @@ 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.» @@ -7906,9 +7907,9 @@ if the college network is espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter as a «criminal.» And under the rules -that universities are beginning to deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer +that universities are beginning to deploy,^[178] your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be expelled. -
+
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that @@ -7943,15 +7944,15 @@ same objective— securing rights to authors—without these millions being considered «criminals,» who is the villain? Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law? -

^[157] +

^[157] Se Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, «MCI Wins U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement» (7. juli 2003), tilgjengelig fra link -#37. -
^[158] +#37. +
^[158] The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an overview, see Tanya Albert, «Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be @@ -7960,8 +7961,8 @@ Back,' Say Tort Reformers, «Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,» CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003, available at link #39. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent -months. -
^[159] +months. +
^[159] @@ -7969,7 +7970,7 @@ Se Danit Lidor, Wired, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #40. For en oversikt over utstillingen, se link #41. -
^[160] +
^[160] See Joseph Menn, «Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,» @@ -7979,32 +7980,32 @@ Janelle Brown, Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available at link #42. See also Jon Healey, «Online Music Services Besieged,» Los Angeles Times, 28 May 2001. -
^[161] +
^[161] Rafe Needleman, «Driving in Cars with MP3s», Business 2.0, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via link #43. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad -Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. -
^[162] +Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. +
^[162] «Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,» GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School (2003), 33–35, available at link #44. -
^[163] +
^[163] GartnerG2, 26–27. -
^[164] +
^[164] See David McGuire, «Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,» Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment). -
^[165] +
^[165] Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, N.Y.: -Prometheus Books, 2001). -
^[166] +Prometheus Books, 2001). +

^[166] - The only circuit court exception is + The only circuit court exception is found in Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit @@ -8018,9 +8019,9 @@ 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, + For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop @@ -8032,17 +8033,17 @@ 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] +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 @@ -8058,39 +8059,39 @@ these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes, this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a -media-neutral way.» - -

^[171] +media-neutral way.» + +

^[171] Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, «The Music Downloading Deluge,» Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at link #46. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded music files from the Internet by early 2001. -

^[172] +

^[172] Alex Pham, «The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,» Los Angeles Times, 10 September 2003, Business. -

^[173] +

^[173] Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, «Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition,» American Economic Review 81, no. 2 (1991): 242. -

^[174] +

^[174] National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy). -

^[175] +

^[175] See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, «Tax Compliance,» Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature). -

^[176] +

^[176] See Frank Ahrens, «RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single @@ -8105,12 +8106,12 @@ September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, Snoop Fan, Either,» New York Times, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, «Is Brianna a Criminal?» Toronto Star, 18 September 2003, P7. -

^[177] +

^[177] Se Nick Brown, «Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age», tilgjengelig fra link #49. -

^[178] +

^[178] See Jeff Adler, «Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not @@ -8186,7 +8187,7 @@ It didn't work—at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free. -

Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works, though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world @@ -8207,7 +8208,7 @@ successfully (Cinderella), sometimes not (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet). These are all commercial publications of public domain works. -

The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this @@ -8216,7 +8217,7 @@ for the taking. This has produced what we might call the «noncommercial publishing industry,» which before the Internet was limited to people with large egos or with political or social causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and -groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.^[179] +groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.^[179]

As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection of poems New Hampshire was slated to pass into the @@ -8228,13 +8229,13 @@ 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] +forever.»^[180]

Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through @@ -8263,7 +8264,7 @@ something quite specific—to Progress»—through means that are also specific— by «securing» «exclusive Rights» (i.e., copyrights) «for limited Times.» -

In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if @@ -8360,10 +8361,10 @@ In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, this «theory» about incentives was proved real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the -Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.^[181] The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent +Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.^[181] The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more -than $200,000 in campaign contributions.^[182] Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to -reelection campaigns in the cycle.^[183] +than $200,000 in campaign contributions.^[182] Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to +reelection campaigns in the cycle.^[183]

Constitutional law is not oblivious to @@ -8396,7 +8397,7 @@ limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no limit. -

The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in United States v. Lopez. The government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate @@ -8409,15 +8410,15 @@ activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.

«We pause to consider the implications of the government's -arguments,» the Chief Justice wrote.^[184] If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be +arguments,» the Chief Justice wrote.^[184] If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's power. The decision in Lopez was reaffirmed five years later in United States -v. Morrison.^[185] +v. Morrison.^[185]

If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress -Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.^[186] +Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.^[186] And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could extend an existing term, then there would be no «stopping @@ -8437,7 +8438,7 @@ in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians. -

Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in Eldred was not about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously @@ -8453,10 +8454,10 @@ power—expressed through the power of lobbyists' money—to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects us all. -

Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public -domain is nothing more than «legal piracy.»^[187] But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in +domain is nothing more than «legal piracy.»^[187] But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a pirate's charter. @@ -8484,7 +8485,7 @@ 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]

@@ -8494,7 +8495,7 @@ as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930, print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you have to do? -

Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and @@ -8550,7 +8551,7 @@ 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 @@ -8560,7 +8561,7 @@ after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal of money. According to one estimate, «Roach has sold about 60,000 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent -films.»^[189] +films.»^[189]

Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that @@ -8579,7 +8580,7 @@ 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. @@ -8611,7 +8612,7 @@ costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright expires. -

But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which @@ -8713,7 +8714,7 @@ library is bigger than this—if you think its role is to archive culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or not—then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library work for us. -

I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not @@ -8721,7 +8722,7 @@ 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 @@ -8752,7 +8753,7 @@ We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where the court will sit «en banc» to hear the case. -

The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the @@ -8783,7 +8784,7 @@ 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 @@ -8792,7 +8793,7 @@ flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og 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 @@ -8841,7 +8842,7 @@ views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in widest range of credible critics—credible not because they were rich and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics. -

The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization, Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning. Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998, @@ -8860,7 +8861,7 @@ our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms. That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle. -

In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software @@ -8870,17 +8871,17 @@ were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments. -

Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument, there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the National Writers Union. -

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 @@ -8890,7 +8891,7 @@ terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to create. Such extensions were nothing more than «rent-seeking»—the fancy term economists use to describe special-interest legislation gone wild. -

The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from @@ -8901,7 +8902,7 @@ 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 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only @@ -8924,17 +8925,17 @@ their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control who did what with content they wanted to control. -

Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work— better than allowing it to fall into the public domain—because if this creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to -«glorify drugs or to create pornography.»^[192] That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, +«glorify drugs or to create pornography.»^[192] That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its «protection» of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license Porgy and Bess to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the -cast.^[193] That's their view of how this +cast.^[193] That's their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to help them effect that control.

@@ -8958,7 +8959,7 @@ favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy. -

The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called «the Conservatives.» The other we called «the Rest.» The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice @@ -8967,7 +8968,7 @@ had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the five who had supported the Lopez/Morrison line of cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure that Congress's powers had limits. -

The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice @@ -8986,13 +8987,13 @@ 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 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions. -

The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no @@ -9054,7 +9055,7 @@ 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 @@ -9065,7 +9066,7 @@ 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 thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law @@ -9098,7 +9099,7 @@ When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated powers had any limit. -

Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history was bothering her.

@@ -9133,7 +9134,7 @@ 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 @@ -9157,7 +9158,7 @@ mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause. -

Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor General Olson, @@ -9217,7 +9218,7 @@ principle in this case from the principle in Lopez. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did not even appear in the Court's opinion. -

@@ -9248,7 +9249,7 @@ 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 @@ -9258,7 +9259,7 @@ 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 @@ -9281,7 +9282,7 @@ Prince. Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts. -

It was first anger with the five «Conservatives.» It would have been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of Lopez didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have @@ -9310,7 +9311,7 @@ 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 @@ -9336,7 +9337,7 @@ 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? @@ -9351,7 +9352,7 @@ anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have persuaded. -

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 @@ -9387,8 +9388,8 @@ creative ferment. The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”). The «powerful and wealthy» line is a bit -unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. -

Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon

+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. +

Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon

The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from The New York Times. That «grand experiment» we call the «public domain» is over? When I @@ -9397,9 +9398,9 @@ Constitution. 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 + There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of noncommercial pornographers—people who were distributing porn but were not making @@ -9412,41 +9413,41 @@ 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] +the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.

^[180] - The full text is: «Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright + The full text is: «Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,» 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998). -

^[181] +

^[181] Associated Press, «Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years», Chicago Tribune, 17. 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 @@ -9458,19 +9459,19 @@ the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the limitation to «limited times» notwithstanding. -

^[187] +

^[187] Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at link #51. -

^[188] +

^[188] The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 7, available at link #52. -

^[189] +

^[189] See David G. Savage, «High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright @@ -9478,7 +9479,7 @@ Law, Streitfeld, «Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,» Orlando Sentinel Tribune, 9 October 2002. -

^[190] +

^[190] Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the @@ -9487,17 +9488,17 @@ v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618), 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the Internet Archive, Eldred v. Ashcroft, available at link #53. -

^[191] +

^[191] Jason Schultz, «The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory», 20 December 2002, 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 @@ -9512,7 +9513,7 @@ 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 @@ -9540,7 +9541,7 @@ and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let the content go. -

The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the @@ -9559,11 +9560,11 @@ marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified. -

As I described in chapter 10, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement -before a copyright is granted.^[194] The +before a copyright is granted.^[194] The Europeans are said to view copyright as a «natural right.» Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if @@ -9576,7 +9577,7 @@ copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread «Walt Disney creativity» is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's protected and what's not. -

The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908, to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the @@ -9638,7 +9639,7 @@ 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 @@ -9688,13 +9689,13 @@ 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 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet. -

En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av @@ -9763,7 +9764,7 @@ Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the resistance. -

But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act, then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that @@ -9797,7 +9798,7 @@ tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own creation. -

Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige @@ -9811,9 +9812,9 @@ the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing society.» The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past. -

^[194] +

^[194] - Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the + Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting @@ -9850,7 +9851,7 @@ av dem $25 afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig -utilgjengelig.^[195] +utilgjengelig.^[195]

@@ -9883,12 +9884,12 @@ 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] +europeiske 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] Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant +tvungen 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 vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti @@ -9899,7 +9900,7 @@ 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 @@ -9926,7 +9927,7 @@ 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 @@ -9991,7 +9992,7 @@ ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i v tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur—sært, og med konsekvenser mer alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte. -

En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt @@ -10016,10 +10017,10 @@ innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal. Hykleriet rår. Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke til. Mektige lobbyister, 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 +møte.^[200] På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere «åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet». Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder @@ -10036,8 +10037,8 @@ 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». -

+fri programvare». +

Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter @@ -10045,7 +10046,7 @@ balansert med avtaler om begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.

Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen -ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var +ideell.^[201] Prosjektene innenfor temaet var både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som @@ -10076,7 +10077,7 @@ S så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed møtet om «åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape fellesgoder» virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda. -

Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er «åpen kildekode og fri programvare». Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om @@ -10087,7 +10088,7 @@ Microsofts programvare. Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i stedet for «proprietær programvare», til sine egne interne behov. -

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 @@ -10096,8 +10097,8 @@ grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest ber biten av «fri programvare»—og IBM er helt klart en kommersiell 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] -

+å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.^[202] +

Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte «åpen kildekode og fri programvare» ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. «Åpen @@ -10114,14 +10115,14 @@ opphavsrett r programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar i bruk programvaren. Den er dermed like avhengig av åndsverksloven som Microsoft. -

Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og 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 @@ -10129,7 +10130,7 @@ interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet. -

Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at @@ -10149,7 +10150,7 @@ at de å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse—den type feil som er tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter. -

For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å «fremme» immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke @@ -10161,7 +10162,7 @@ balansen. Men at det skulle v medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag? Svekker allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært bedre om internettets protokoller hadde vært patentert? -

For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres @@ -10191,9 +10192,9 @@ sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke f og 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 @@ -10222,7 +10223,7 @@ avsl illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.) -

Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden skulle «målet» til myndighetene være «å fremme den @@ -10253,7 +10254,7 @@ for mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur.

Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. -

Det finnes øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det @@ -10299,13 +10300,13 @@ evnen til

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 har +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 @@ -10315,14 +10316,14 @@ med advokater for snakker om å gi datavirus 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] Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i +ned BBC-innhold 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 +landet.^[209] Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten er 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 @@ -10336,7 +10337,7 @@ snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert. -

^[195] +

^[195] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, «Final Report: Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy» (London, 2002), @@ -10344,12 +10345,12 @@ 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 @@ -10360,13 +10361,13 @@ 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] @@ -10383,7 +10384,7 @@ the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,» Widener Law Symposium Journal (Spring 2001): 175. -

^[200] +

^[200] Jonathan Krim, «The Quiet War over Open-Source», Washington Post, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra @@ -10394,10 +10395,10 @@ tilgjengelig fra «U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO», National Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #61. -

^[201] +

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

^[202] +

^[202] Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer @@ -10414,15 +10415,15 @@ Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, tilgjengelig fra The Commercial Software Model, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra link #63. -

^[203] +

^[203] Krim, «The Quiet War over Open-Source», tilgjengelig fra link #64. -

^[204] +

^[204] Se Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, -210–20. -

^[205] +210–20. +

^[205] John Borland, «RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers», CNET News.com, @@ -10437,23 +10438,23 @@ Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants Washington Post, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean, «Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA», Wired News, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #67. -

^[206] +

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

^[207] +

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

^[208] +

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

^[209] +

^[209] «Creative Commons and Brazil», Creative Commons Weblog, @@ -10551,7 +10552,7 @@ amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law (there is no law protecting «privacy» in public places), and in many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead, by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy. -

Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this @@ -10568,12 +10569,12 @@ government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too), then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears. -

It is this reality that explains the push of many to define «privacy» on the Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push -for laws to do what friction did.^[210] And +for laws to do what friction did.^[210] And whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those @@ -10585,13 +10586,14 @@ movement. When computers with software were first made available commercially, the software—both the source code and the binaries— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much -about controlling their software. -

-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 -smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere -seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid. +about controlling their software. +

+Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i og som forsker ved MIT +lærte han å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til å utforske +og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Som en av de smarte +typene, i tillegg til å være en flink programmerer, begynte Stallman å +basere seg på friheten han hadde til bygge på eller endre på andre personers +verker.

In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone @@ -10612,18 +10614,18 @@ and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the market than it was for you.

-Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early -1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code. The world of -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. -

+Dermed begynte praksisen med proprietær kode å spre seg, og tidlig på +1980-tallet fant Stallman at han var omringet av proprietær kode. Verden av +fri programvare hadde blitt fjernet av en endring i økonomien rundt +databehandling. Og han trodde at hvis han ikke gjorde noe med dette, så +ville friheten til å endre og dele programvare bli fundametalt svekket. +

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. - +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 @@ -10641,9 +10643,9 @@ copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been passively guaranteed.

-Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with -the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific -journals are produced. +Til slutt, la oss se på et veldig nytt eksempel som resonerer mer direkte +med historien i denne boken. Dette er overgangen for hvordan akademiske og +vitenskapelige tidsskrifter blir produsert.

As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that @@ -10667,9 +10669,9 @@ there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in the public domain.

-But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was -through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this -data except by paying for a subscription? +Men hva hvis den eneste måten å få tilgang til sosiale og vitenskapelige +data var gjennom proprietære tjenester? Hva hvis ingen hadde muligheten til +å bla igjennom disse datasettene uten å betale for et abonnement?

As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form, @@ -10682,11 +10684,12 @@ institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals (architecture)—namely, that it was very hard to control access to a paper journal.

-As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that -libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means -that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to -disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology -and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before. +Etter hvert som tidsskrift blir elektroniske krever derimot utgiverne at +bibliotekene ikke gir alle tilgang til tidsskriftene. Dette betyr at +frihetene som papirtidsskrifter ga i offentlige biblioteker begynner å +forsvinne. Dermed, på samme måte som med personvern og programvare, +endringer i teknologien og markedet krymper en frihet som vi tok for gitt +tidligere.

This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for @@ -10696,7 +10699,7 @@ 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 @@ -10704,10 +10707,10 @@ doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge and science. -

16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé

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

Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of reasonable copyright on top @@ -10751,7 +10754,7 @@ lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain. -

This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such @@ -10762,7 +10765,7 @@ movement of consumers and producers of 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. -

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 produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written @@ -10793,7 +10796,7 @@ will probably increase sales of Cory's bo Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion. The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success. -

The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a @@ -10802,7 +10805,7 @@ All, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well. -

These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use @@ -10815,7 +10818,7 @@ others. Because the legal costs of sampli (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not «allow» Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs -are so high^[211]), these artists release +are so high^[211]), these artists release into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.

@@ -10850,7 +10853,7 @@ project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily. -

16.2. Dem, snart

We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and @@ -10895,7 +10898,7 @@ 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.

@@ -10971,7 +10974,7 @@ 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 @@ -10983,7 +10986,7 @@ again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted elsewhere. -

For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The @@ -11022,7 +11025,7 @@ 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 @@ -11052,14 +11055,14 @@ klar og aktiv «rimelig bruk» og «idé/uttrykk» mindre nødvendig å håndtere. -

Keep it alive: Copyright should have to be renewed. 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.

@@ -11088,7 +11091,7 @@ Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse id enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor «radikalt» kan det være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president? -

16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk

As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly @@ -11103,10 +11106,10 @@ writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I have the power to deny you the right to 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. @@ -11114,7 +11117,7 @@ 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 @@ -11128,7 +11131,7 @@ 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 @@ -11140,7 +11143,7 @@ lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it. -

This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a @@ -11149,7 +11152,7 @@ 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 @@ -11211,7 +11214,7 @@ ha v Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for. -

Tilfelle	Hvems verdi ble «røvet»	Responsen til domstolene	Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger	Komponister	Ingen beskyttelse	Lovbestemt lisens
Radio	Plateartister	N/A	Ingenting
Kabel-TV	Kringkastere	Ingen beskyttelse	Lovbestemt lisens
Videospiller / opptaker	Filmskapere	Ingen beskyttelse	Ingenting

Tilfelle	Hvems verdi ble «røvet»	Responsen til domstolene	Responsen til Kongressen
Innspillinger	Komponister	Ingen beskyttelse	Lovbestemt lisens
Radio	Plateartister	N/A	Ingenting
Kabel-TV	Kringkastere	Ingen beskyttelse	Lovbestemt lisens
Videospiller / opptaker	Filmskapere	Ingen beskyttelse	Ingenting

Kolofon

THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street New York, New York

@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ 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 @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ Den tradisjonen er m sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av «fri kultur»—ikke «fri» som i «fri bar» (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri -programvarebevegelsen^[2]), men +programvarebevegelsen^[2]), men «fri» som i «talefrihet», «fritt marked», «frihandel», «fri konkurranse», «fri vilje» og «frie valg». En fri kultur støtter @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ definert det tjuende du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende. -

Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ H 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]

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

^[2] +

^[2] Richard M. Stallman, Free Software, Free Societies 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.

^[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 @@ -682,21 +682,21 @@ meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship», Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også Paul Goldstein, Real Property (Mineola, N.Y.: -Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. -

^[6] +Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. +

^[6] Lawrence Lessing, Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard Armstrong (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209. -

^[7] Se «Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,» +

^[7] Se «Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,» første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha, tilgjengelig fra link #1. -

^[8]Lessing, 226. -

^[9] +

^[8]Lessing, 226. +

^[9] Lessing, 256. -

^[10] +

^[10] Amanda Lenhart, «The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at Internet Access and the Digital Divide,» Pew Internet and American Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra link #2. -

^[11] +

^[11] Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov. Åndsverkslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle @@ -705,18 +705,18 @@ interesse n åndsverkslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, «The Right to Privacy», Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. - -

^[12] + +

^[12] Se Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (New York: -Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. -

^[13] +Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. +

^[13] Amy Harmon, «Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,» New York Times, 17. januar 2002. -

^[14] +

^[14] Neil W. Netanel, «Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,» -Yale Law Journal 106 (1996): 283. -

Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»

+Yale Law Journal 106 (1996): 283. +

^[15] +

^[15] Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield). -

^[16] +

^[16] Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, «Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation,» Notre Dame Law Review 65 (1990): 397. -

^[17] +

^[17] Lisa Bannon, «The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,» Wall Street Journal, 21. august 1996, tilgjengelig fra link #3; Jonathan Zittrain, «Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,» Boston -Globe, 24. november 2002. -

^[18] +Globe, 24. november 2002. +

^[18] I The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ 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 en: Skaperne

I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn @@ -883,8 +883,8 @@ bl Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det -var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!^[19] -

+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!^[19] +

^[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, @@ -1220,12 +1220,12 @@ No. 1 «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 åndsverksloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en @@ -1237,12 +1237,12 @@ 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 @@ -1253,9 +1253,9 @@ anime-kunstnere til ikke alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.» -

^[25] +

^[25] - Begrepet immateriell + Begrepet immateriell eiendom er av relativ ny opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se også Lawrence Lessig, The Future of @@ -1264,7 +1264,7 @@ presist beskriver et sett med «eiendoms»-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse rettighetene er svært forskjellige. -

Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»

^[26] +

^[26] Reese V. Jenkins, Images and Enterprise (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112. -

^[27] +

^[27] - Brian Coe, The Birth of + Brian Coe, The Birth of Photography (New York: Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. -

^[28] +

^[28] Jenkins, 177. -

^[29] +

^[29] Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178. -

^[30] +

^[30] Coe, 58. -

^[31] +

^[31] For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, Pavesich @@ -1921,11 +1922,11 @@ mot N.E. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905); Foster-Milburn Co. mot Chinn, 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); Corliss mot Walker, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894). -

^[32] +

^[32] Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, «The Right to Privacy», -Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. -

^[33] +Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193. +

^[33] Se Melville B. Nimmer, «The Right of Publicity», Law @@ -1934,62 +1935,62 @@ and Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, (1960) 398–407; White mot Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). -

^[34] +

^[34] H. Edward Goldberg, «Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,» cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra link #7. -

^[35] +

^[35] Judith Van Evra, Television and Child Development (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); «Findings on Family and TV Study», Denver Post, 25. mai 1997, B6. -

^[36] +

^[36] Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002. - -

^[37] + +

^[37] Se Scott Steinberg, «Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs», E!online, 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #8; «Timeline», 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra link #9. -

^[38] +

^[38] -Intervju med Daley og Barish. -

^[39] +Intervju med Daley og Barish. +

^[39] ibid. -

^[40] +

^[40] Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, bk. 1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), kap. 16. -

^[41] +

^[41] Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, «Deliberation Day», Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2) (2002): 129. -

^[42] +

^[42] Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192. -

^[43] +

^[43] Noah Shachtman, «With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot», New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5. -

^[44] +

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

^[45] +

^[45] John Schwartz, «Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of @@ -1998,9 +1999,9 @@ Information Online Strong Overall», Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra link #10. -

^[46] +

^[46] - Se Michael Falcone, «Does an Editor's + Se Michael Falcone, «Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?» New York Times, 29. september 2003, C4. («Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i @@ -2009,14 +2010,14 @@ publisere 12 dager senere p Olafson, en Houston Chronicle-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.») -

^[47] +

^[47] Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, «Technological Access Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,» Communications of the Association for Computer Machinery 43 (2000): 9. -

Kapittel tre: Kataloger

^[48] +

^[48] Tim Goral, «Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages», Professional Media Group LCC 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443. -

^[49] +

^[49] Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001) (27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for the Arts, More Than One in a Blue Moon (2000). -

^[50] +

^[50] Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i «KaZaA and Punishment,» Wall Street Journal, 10. september 2003, A24. -

Kapittel fire: «Pirater»

^[210] @@ -11573,54 +11576,54 @@ par. 6–18, available at The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between -technology and privacy).

^[211] +technology and privacy).

^[211] Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real Culture Wars (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at link #72. -

^[212] +

^[212] The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only. Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted -by other countries as well.

^[213] +by other countries as well.

^[213] There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates. -

^[214] +

^[214] «A Radical Rethink», Economist, 366:8308 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra link #74. -

^[215] +

^[215] Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig fra link #75. -

^[216] +

^[216] Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32. -

^[217] +

^[217] Ibid., 56. -

^[218] +

^[218] Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), -187–216. -

^[219] +187–216. +

^[219] For eksempel, se, «Music Media Watch», The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra link #76. -

^[220] +

^[220] William Fisher, Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities (sist revidert: 10. oktober @@ -11650,16 +11653,16 @@ er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman n motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt -forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se link #85. - - -

^[221] +forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se 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 @@ -11674,7 +11677,7 @@ Industry? Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden til det juridiske system. Se, for eksempel, -Rethinking, 174–76. +Rethinking, 174–76.

Fri kultur

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

Lawrence Lessig

Lawrence Lessig

Kolofon

Kolofon

Introduksjon

Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»

Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»

Kapittel en: Skaperne

Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»

Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»

Kapittel tre: Kataloger

Kapittel tre: Kataloger

Kapittel fire: «Pirater»

Kapittel fire: «Pirater»

4.1. Film

4.4. Kabel-TV

4.4. Kabel-TV

5.1. Piratvirksomhet I

5.1. Piratvirksomhet I

Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne

Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne

Kapittel åtte: Omformerne

Kapittel åtte: Omformerne

Kapittel ni: Samlere

Kapittel ni: Samlere

Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»

Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»

10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett

10.2. Opphav

10.2. Opphav

10.4. Loven: Virkeområde

10.8. Sammen

10.8. Sammen

Del III. Nøtter

Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster

16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé

16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé

16.2. Dem, snart

16.2. Dem, snart

16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk

16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk

Notater

Indeks

Symboler

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

Y

Z

Indeks

Symboler

A

B

C

D

E

F

G