download FREE CULTURE(PDF)

Recommendations

Info

My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that wouldn’t make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A society is right to ban murder always and everywhere. My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don’t care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of the extreme of regulation they impose. Twenty million Americans have come of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of “sharing.” We need to be able to call these twenty million Americans “citizens,” not “felons.” When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons? Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid without transforming America into a nation of felons? This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example. We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought. The law protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used 202 FREE CULTURE
ecord store and buy jazz records to replace them. That “use” of the recordings is free. But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without copy-protection technologies, I am “free” to copy, or “rip,” music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that “freedom” was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the “Rip, Mix, Burn” capacities of digital technologies. This “use” of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife’s CDs, and storing them in one archive. Then, using Apple’s iTunes, or a wonderful program called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach, Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others—the potential is endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own right. This use is enabled by unprotected media—either CDs or records. But unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy programs to identify ripped content on people’s machines. If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles, and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn’t bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving PUZZLES 203
Page 2 and 3:
This PDF version of Free Culture is
Page 4 and 5:
ALSO BY LAWRENCE LESSIG The Future
Page 6 and 7:
FREE CULTURE HOW BIG MEDIA USES TEC
Page 8 and 9:
To Eric Eldred—whose work first d
Page 10 and 11:
“PROPERTY” 81 CHAPTER SIX: Foun
Page 12 and 13:
PREFACE At the end of his review of
Page 14 and 15:
tween liberal Olympia Snowe and con
Page 16 and 17:
FREE CULTURE
Page 18 and 19:
lowed to enter into an exclusive li
Page 20 and 21:
On the day after Christmas, 1933, f
Page 22 and 23:
The series of body blows that FM ra
Page 24 and 25:
street corners telling stories that
Page 26 and 27:
Internet seem remote to most. To th
Page 28 and 29:
the lucky Wright brothers, the Inte
Page 30 and 31:
“PIRACY”
Page 32 and 33:
This efficiency does not respect th
Page 34 and 35:
e seeing, as Richard Florida writes
Page 36 and 37:
The boys worked from a music and so
Page 38 and 39:
(1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beau
Page 40 and 41:
significantly. A doujinshi comic ca
Page 42 and 43:
e richer if doujinshi artists were
Page 44 and 45:
The hard question is therefore not
Page 46 and 47:
Eastman, himself an amateur photogr
Page 48 and 49:
Mickey, so, too, should these photo
Page 50 and 51:
“Media literacy,” as Dave Yanof
Page 52 and 53:
and this literacy in particular, is
Page 54 and 55:
didn’t speak very well. But they
Page 56 and 57:
in those elections. The cycle of th
Page 58 and 59:
from the mainstream press. As Dave
Page 60 and 61:
take the commercial apart and manip
Page 62 and 63:
CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs In the fall
Page 64 and 65:
users of the RPI network made avail
Page 66 and 67:
won, he would have a piece of paper
Page 68 and 69:
gave him, and the MPPC was serious
Page 70 and 71:
this capacity to pirate. As South D
Page 72 and 73:
dustry is a half-billion-dollar bus
Page 74 and 75:
casters’ content, but more egregi
Page 76 and 77:
CHAPTER FIVE: “Piracy” There is
Page 78 and 79:
ate nation, but we will not allow a
Page 80 and 81:
Thus, while I understand the pull o
Page 82 and 83:
File sharers share different kinds
Page 84 and 85:
eing]—but had to a large extent r
Page 86 and 87:
esponse to this problem: used book
Page 88 and 89:
infringing material, the district c
Page 90 and 91:
tem to minimize the opportunity for
Page 92 and 93:
macy in the behavior of the “pira
Page 94 and 95:
“PROPERTY”
Page 96 and 97:
ow range of exceptions—ideas rele
Page 98 and 99:
ight. Prices of the classics were t
Page 100 and 101:
strictions on the freedom of others
Page 102 and 103:
ones Expire; so that should this Bi
Page 104 and 105:
the monopoly power of publishers? P
Page 106 and 107:
“Ruined” is a bit of an exagger
Page 108 and 109:
it, this touch of cartoon helped ca
Page 110 and 111:
So I asked Else why he didn’t jus
Page 112 and 113:
CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers In 1993
Page 114 and 115:
We decided that it would be fair if
Page 116 and 117:
etrospective of someone’s career
Page 118 and 119:
its archives, musicians are able to
Page 120 and 121:
CHAPTER NINE: Collectors In April 1
Page 122 and 123:
portant to maintain in some histori
Page 124 and 125:
tions from around the world and hit
Page 126 and 127:
eal restriction was economics. The
Page 128 and 129:
CHAPTER TEN: “Property” Jack Va
Page 130 and 131:
tections resident in all other prop
Page 132 and 133:
equires that you lose your “creat
Page 134 and 135:
with a $150,000 fine. The fine is a
Page 136 and 137:
strict—a federal requirement that
Page 138 and 139:
after the fall of Saddam, but this
Page 140 and 141:
usiness against others. Its role is
Page 142 and 143:
as criticism of DDT is not an endor
Page 144 and 145:
particular concentration of market
Page 146 and 147:
granted only for works where they w
Page 148 and 149:
Law: Scope The “scope” of a cop
Page 150 and 151:
The act left other creators totally
Page 152 and 153:
“Copies.” That certainly sounds
Page 154 and 155:
These are uses that themselves invo
Page 156 and 157:
night before you went to bed. None
Page 158 and 159:
ness on distributing this content a
Page 160 and 161:
Casablanca. Warner Brothers objecte
Page 162 and 163: According to my eBook Reader, I hav
Page 164 and 165: These are controls, not permissions
Page 166 and 167: up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, b
Page 168 and 169: Felten and his team figured out the
Page 170 and 171: use of the copyrighted material was
Page 172 and 173: would agree such a use is bad. Or a
Page 174 and 175: to control the use of content, and
Page 176 and 177: Does this concentration matter? Wil
Page 178 and 179: tion companies producing television
Page 180 and 181: money. Assume a group of concerned
Page 182 and 183: ing technology, together they produ
Page 184 and 185: commercial or not, transformative o
Page 186 and 187: PUZZLES
Page 188 and 189: The villagers don’t leave him alo
Page 190 and 191: But it is not quite stealing from T
Page 192 and 193: In April 2001, eMusic.com was purch
Page 194 and 195: There will be many consequences of
Page 196 and 197: e unclear. It never pays to do anyt
Page 198 and 199: you’ve got a little note from a l
Page 200 and 201: my.mp3.com service was to give user
Page 202 and 203: The point is not that businesses sh
Page 204 and 205: the technology, but will likely be
Page 206 and 207: Internet radio is thus to radio wha
Page 208 and 209: 13. retail album title; 14. recordi
Page 210 and 211: RIAA launches lawsuits against not
Page 214 and 215: use of CDs. The technology, in othe
Page 216 and 217: The RIAA then expanded this campaig
Page 218 and 219: BALANCES
Page 220 and 221: Yet policy makers are not willing t
Page 222 and 223: accessible to the twentieth century
Page 224 and 225: gress has the power to extend its t
Page 226 and 227: ights are about to expire, there is
Page 228 and 229: ing term, then there would be no
Page 230 and 231: work. In 1930, 10,047 books were pu
Page 232 and 233: any continuing commercial value. Th
Page 234 and 235: In this context, there is no need f
Page 236 and 237: freedom to fill the gaps. As one re
Page 238 and 239: nored this pressure (something that
Page 240 and 241: Software Foundation (home of the GN
Page 242 and 243: their view of how this part of Amer
Page 244 and 245: case, under the government’s argu
Page 246 and 247: for the chance to see the proceedin
Page 248 and 249: chief justice: Well, but you want m
Page 250 and 251: Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the
Page 252 and 253: power. And they joined an opinion t
Page 254 and 255: the decision was praised, it was pr
Page 256 and 257: CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II The day
Page 258 and 259: moved in 1976, when Congress follow
Page 260 and 261: a world without formalities. Comple
Page 262 and 263:
ond, they argued that the proposal
Page 264 and 265:
domain tied to the Internet could s
Page 266 and 267:
These prices are not high because t
Page 268 and 269:
about the sanctity of property. 5 I
Page 270 and 271:
comes our common sense. And the cha
Page 272 and 273:
WIPO. But in my view, there couldn
Page 274 and 275:
First, they are just flat wrong. As
Page 276 and 277:
as Lessig would have it, then of co
Page 278 and 279:
petition and increased diversity. S
Page 280 and 281:
AFTERWORD
Page 282 and 283:
US, NOW Common sense is with the co
Page 284 and 285:
Well, if we think in terms of the m
Page 286 and 287:
The world of free software had been
Page 288 and 289:
of scientific work submit that work
Page 290 and 291:
of content (“content conducers,
Page 292 and 293:
with Creative Commons freedoms. The
Page 294 and 295:
These are all formalities associate
Page 296 and 297:
tially lower the burden of this for
Page 298 and 299:
2. Shorter Terms The term of copyri
Page 300 and 301:
3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use As I obser
Page 302 and 303:
tain statutory conditions. Either w
Page 304 and 305:
tion should not be, how should the
Page 306 and 307:
Alternatively, the law could create
Page 308 and 309:
uses. A system that simply charges
Page 310 and 311:
should be on how to make sure the a
Page 312 and 313:
arely test their power, or the powe
Page 314 and 315:
Notes Toward a Cultural Geography o
Page 316 and 317:
5. Coe, 58. 6. For illustrative cas
Page 318 and 319:
7. To Amend and Consolidate the Act
Page 320 and 321:
(September 2002), reporting that 28
Page 322 and 323:
CHAPTER SIX: FOUNDERS 1. Jacob Tons
Page 324 and 325:
York: Basic Books, 1999): 90-95; La
Page 326 and 327:
we should repeal it. It is instead
Page 328 and 329:
35. Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a s
Page 330 and 331:
11. For example, in July 2002, Repr
Page 332 and 333:
Constitution. I invite all of you t
Page 334 and 335:
kets pose a threat to the entire sy
Page 336 and 337:
#79. For other proposals, see Lawre
Page 338 and 339:
Yonezawa. I am thankful as well as
Page 340 and 341:
Barlow, Joel, 8 Barnes & Noble, 147
Page 342 and 343:
copyright law (cont.) copies as cor
Page 344 and 345:
Fairbank, Robert, 105 fair use, 141
Page 346 and 347:
Jefferson, Thomas, 84, 120, 284 Joh
Page 348 and 349:
peer-to-peer file sharing (cont.) f
Page 350 and 351:
Secure Digital Music Initiative (SD
Page 352:
ABOUT THE AUTHOR LAWRENCE LESSIG (h
show all

download FREE CULTURE(PDF)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?