 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Lawrence Lessig (email) Registration now open for the Internet Law (ILaw) Program June 30 - July 4, 2003 at Stanford Law School. |
Lessig Blog 
the first printed book we have record of was dedicated to the public domain!
Kevin Kelly writes with the following amazing story:
> Thought you’d enjoy this. I was researching some stuff today and read
> this amazing story in THE INVENTION OF PRINTING IN CHINA, by Thomas
> Carter (1955):
>
> Carter is describing the very first printed book in the world, the
> DIAMOND SUTRA, a intact copy of which was found in a secret cave
> chamber in Kansu China. The book was published on May 11, 868.
> That’s, what, some 1100 years ago. Here is the key: the very first
> book ever printed had a public domain notice. Here’s what Carter says
> [p. 56]:
>
> The book consists of six sheets of text and one shorter sheet with
> woodcut, all neatly pasted together so as to form one continuous roll
> sixteen feet long… At the end, printed into the text, is the
> statement that the book was “reverently made for universal free
> distribution by Wang Chieh on behalf of his two parents on the 15th
> of the 4th moon of the 9th year of Hsien-t’ung.”
>
> Designated Universal Free Distribution from day one.
>
> Wang Chieh would have signed the petition.
1,000 signatures before lunch!
Over 1,000 people have signed our petition in just a couple hours! One-hundred times this and we will have something powerful to show. Thanks to all who have helped — and especially those who have translated this argument into terms more people can understand. The net builds power the way Google ranks content — one link tied to another.
We have launched a petition to build support for the Public Domain Enhancement Act. That act would require American copyright holders to pay $1 fifty years after a work was published. If they pay the $1, the copyright continues. If they don’t, the work passes into the public domain. Historical estimates would suggest 98% of works would pass into the pubilc domain after 50 years. The Act would do a great deal to reclaim a public domain.
This proposal has received a great deal of support. It is now facing some important lobbyists’ opposition. We need a public way to begin to demonstrate who the lobbyists don’t speak for. This is the first step.
If you are an ally in at least this cause, please sign the petition. Please blog it, please email it, please spam it, please buy billboards about it — please do whatever you can. And most importantly, please help us explain its importance. There is a chance to do something significant here. But it will take a clearer, simpler voice than mine.
So if you get a chance to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dastar, keep in mind this brilliant observation by Duke Law Professor James Boyle:
So we now know that while the word “origin” in an IP statute must be carefully defined in order to prevent rights-creep that would undermine the careful limitiations struck in a statutory scheme, the words “promote,” “progress,” “limited” and even “author” can be defined any way Congress wanted to even if that upsets the careful balance struck in a constitutional clause, because they are only words in the Constitution, and thus much less fundamental.
Got it.
The Supreme Court has unanimously decided the Dastar case — and correctly. The issue was whether a film producer could be held $1.5m liable for using a public domain film without giving credit to the former copyright owner. The decision is being described as a loss for 20th Century Fox. It is more accurately a gain for the public domain.
MediaCon: Gillmor’s final shot
Tomorrow’s vote at the FCC is discussed in Dan Gillmor’s column. The FCC will liberate the networks to consolidate because the FCC feels pressured by the courts. (“Courts” means the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sees a pressing First Amendment claim favoring network owners, but no First Amendment claim defending the public domain (“copyrights are categorically immune” from First Amendment scrutiny)). Read Dan’s column and wonder: here in this democracy, this universal opposition to the actions of a bureaucracy does what exactly?
This is an important week. Monday, the FCC rules on its mediacon rules. Monday could also be the day the Supreme Court decides the Dastar case. But most important of all: Wednesday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hears the Aimster case.
EFF has written an amicus in the case (have you contributed yet?). EFF’s core argument is that it is time that a Court of Appeals properly interpret the Sony Betamax case. Of all the Courts of Appeals in the US, this is the best one to hear this issue. (Bias-meter reading: high. I clerked at that court). Let’s hope it hears it well.
This has been an issue close to my own heart. The best thing about Sony is that it recognized the harm that legal uncertainty can impose upon innovation. If innovators have to guess how a federal court will balance the effects of its technology upon copyright interests, then there will be less innovation. Thus the genius of its rule was that it said essentially this: if your technology is “capable” of a “substantial noninfringing use,” then the question of whether your technology should be permitted is no longer a judicial question. If it is capable of a substanial noninfringing use, then the question of balancing (which is always at the core of copyright) is left up to Congress.
The judges don’t get announced in a case in the 7th Circuit before the argument, so we can’t know who will hear the case. But if you’re anywhere close to Chicago, you should go see the argument. It is said that Aimee Deep will be there. But whether true or not, the freedom of that spirit will at least have a chance in Chicago.
The Economist (that magazine that called for a 14 year copyright term) has a great piece about spectrum. The piece nicely carries this “Commons vs. Property” debate one step further. As Yochai Benkler is increasingly pushing the point, the problem with the “commons” metaphor is that it itself is a “property” metaphor — just a form of “property” where everyone has a right to access.
But that, Benkler argues, is misleading. The question we should be asking is not which form of property makes sense — private or commons — but instead a much more libertarian question: Do we need any “regulation of the spectrum” at all? Or put better: Given today’s technology, is there any reason to believe that the market operating on its own, without any substantial form of regulation, won’t figure out how best to develop devices that radiate? Can’t we depend upon the market to solve whatever coordination problems there are?
I’ve already tagged Benkler “perhaps the best communications theorist of our generation.” I shouldn’t have said “perhaps.”
MediaCon: in a thing worth a 1,000 words
From Sarah Lai Stirland’s post: A picture of the current concentration.
What happened in the Korean election?
There’s an important story about the Korean election that is not well understood by many, including me. I have read all sorts of accounts, but none really seems to capture it. David Moynihan tells an interesting part of the story in a comment to my post on “girrrl revolutions.” That suggested the idea of a community-telling.
So here’s the question: There was a surprising effect produced by the youth in the last Korean election — surprising because the pollsters missed it — and that surprise was in part facilitated by technology. But what’s the real story?
Advanced warning: I intend to be an editor of this community-telling, so off topic and unhelpful posts will be removed.
MediaCon: Ted Turner argues we need to preserve a world where the next Ted Turner can compete
Turner has a great piece in the Post about the dangers in Michael Powell’s June 2 proposal.
Andy Orlowski has an interesting dump on blogs in the Register. But he also makes an interesting mistake.
I’m not sure how one could ever say what the impact of “blogs” is universally. Yet by asking the question like that, you miss important differences in different countries. Joi’s “Emergent Democracy” stuff might seem odd from the perspective of England or the United States (because we of course have such healthy democracies, and soon we’ll have three media companies to tell us so); but within the structures of Japan, this channel becomes very significant. Likewise with the equivalent effect (though not through blogs) that has yet to be understood in the Korean election.
The link to teenage girls is even more mysterious, and yet to be understood. The other extraordinarily significant movement in Japan — dojinshi comics — is also said to have been sparked by teenage girls. That movement now gathers over 400,000 people twice a year to trade in those comics. And Sifry’s estimated number of blogs: 400,000.
Just a coincidence? Who are we to say?
Tonight on PBS, there is a film by a friend’s father. It was his last film before he died. Charles Guggenheim was one of the greatest documentary film makers of the 20th century. If you get a chance, watch Berga: Soldiers of Another War. To find local listings, click here. And if you get a chance to see it, let Davis, Charles Guggenheim’s son, know what you think by emailing him here. (Note: you have to remove the ZIPPOSPAM from the email address).
MediaCon: Edwards questions the FCC’s mandate
John Edwards has joined the long list of opponents to Chairman Powell’s plans to relax media ownership rules. His letter to Powell is posted below. Notice, appropriately, the punchline is a question about the FCC’s mandate: We should ask, exactly who elected Chairman Powell, and upon whose mandate is he pushing this change?
May 28, 2003
The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554Dear Chairman Powell:
I write to urge you not to increase the national
broadcast ownership cap and not to proceed with the
rulemaking scheduled for June 2.Diversity in the media is enormously important to our
democracy. As consumers, Americans should have
choices in the music they can hear and the television
programs they can watch. As citizens, Americans
should have access to different ideas and points of
view. The government has a responsibility to foster
this diversity of expression. Unfortunately, the
FCC’s new rules are likely to undermine it.The effects on rural America could be particularly
harmful. People in rural communities and small-town
America have distinctive interests, and local stations
offer programming that responds to these interests. In
recent years, local stations in rural North Carolina
have offered prime-time broadcasts of Atlantic Coast
Conference basketball games, Billy Graham crusades,
and muscular dystrophy telethons. All Americans can
appreciate the importance of offering local
programming tailored to local concerns. By
undercutting this diversity, the FCC’s new rules will
do a disservice to all Americans.I have heard you suggest that with the growth of cable
and satellite television, broadcast diversity is no
longer important. That may be true in some affluent
communities, but many Americans do not have cable and
satellite television, especially in rural areas.
These Americans depend on broadcast news and
programming, and their programming should offer real
choices that are responsive to their interests.I am especially troubled that your agency is
implementing these proposals without permitting
further public discussion. The FCC does not have a
mandate to make controversial decisions without giving
the public a full opportunity to comment. The fact
that two Commissioners have requested a delay should
signal to you that the prudent course, at the least,
is to postpone the vote and permit open public
discussion.
Thank you for you consideration of this request.
Yours sincerely,
John Edwardscc: Commissioners Abernathy, Adelstein, Copps, and
Martin
In a paper on Innovation released by the Lieberman campaign today, Senator Lieberman writes,
“Ensure that the Internet continues to provide an open platform for innovation: The Internet is different from the phone network and radio and broadcast television in important ways. It is easier for individuals and small organizations to be producers as well as consumers of information. The Internet allows for “many to many” communication as opposed to the “one to many” communication of broadcast television. Innovation can occur at the edge of the network. A student, an independent software developer, or a small high-tech company can come up with an idea for a new application, protocol, or kind of content. If enough people find it useful or worthwhile, this idea can spread like wildfire. Even as the Internet evolves, it important to ensure that it continues to provide an open platform for rapid and decentralized innovation, and for the exchange of ideas.”End to End has gone presidential.
UPDATE: the link, changed, has been fixed.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.