Why Open Content Matters

8/8/2019 Why Open Content Matters

1/10

Why Open Content Matters

B r y a n P f a f f e n b e rg e r

Knowledge mu st forever govern ignorance, and a people who w ould be their ow ngovernors mu st arm themselves w ith the pow er whic h know ledge gives. Populargovernment, with out popular information, or the means o f acquiring it, is but aPrologue to a Farce or a Trag edy--or perhaps bo th.- -Ja me s Madison, 1815

Don ' t be mi s l ed by t he t e ch s tock co l l apse ; we ' r e on a d ig i t i z a t i on j ug -ge rnau t . Jus t a few yea rs ago , l e a the r- bou nd DayTimer s a nd F il of axes domi -na t e d b us ines s mee t ings ; t oday, you ' l l f i nd a p r e po nd e ra nce o f Pa lm P ilo ts .As fo r t ha t nove l o r new spa pe r you ' r e r ead ing , dou b t i t no t : d ig i t i z a t ion i s

c o m i n g . O f c o ur s e, y o u n e e d n ' t w o r r y a b o u t p r i n t m e d i a d i s a p p e a r i n g o v er -n igh t ; if any th ing , t he In t e rn e t i s f ue l i ng a r ena i s sance o f ne ws pap e r r ead -ing . Bene a th t he su r face, t houg h , p r i n t med ia have ch ange d . The und e r ly ingt ech no lo gy is a lr eady d ig i ta l , f r om the po in t o f c r ea t ion t o t he me an s o fna t i ona l and i n t e rna t i on a l d i s t r i bu t i on . As pub l i she r s a r e t r y ing to cap i t a l -i z e on t he i r d ig i ti z ed p roduc t , t hey a re pus h in g t he U .S. Congre s s t o enac tl e g is l a ti o n g r a n t i n g t h e m w h a t a m o u n t s t o r ea l p r o p e r t y r i g h ts i n p e r p e t u -i ty ove r p r in t ed m a te r i a l - - r i gh t s i n wh ich even t he au tho r s do no t sha re .Cou p led w i th t he se d i s t u rb ing l ega l dev e lopm en t s , the d ig i t i z a ti on o f p r in tme d ia a r ch ives p r e sages t he r i s e o f a wo r ld i n wh i ch acces s t o bas i c f ac t s

and s c ien ti fi c kn ow led ge is pa r ce l ed ou t by a s t a t e -p ro t ec t ed pay -pe r-v i ewindus t ry - - and a s you w i l l l e a rn i n t h i s a r t i c l e , t ha t ' s bad news fo r democ-racy. I f fo r-prof i t copyr igh t ho ld ers ge t the i r way, dem ocra t ic no t ion s con -ce rn in g publ i c acces s to f ac tua l i n fo rma t ion ma y see m ju s t a s qua in t a s aD a y R u n n e r s e e m s t o t h e P a l m - t o t i n g d i ge r at i.

In this ar t ic le , I wi l l argue tha t t heopen content m o v e m e n t - - a m o v e m e n tt o r e l e a s e w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t s w i t h a l i c e n s e s i m i l a r t o t h e G N U G e n e r a lPub l i c L i cense (GPL; s ee ) - - i s be -

Bryan Pfaffenberger teaches in the De par tm ent of Technology, Cul ture , and C om mu nica t ion a t theUnivers i ty of Virginia where he specia l izes in cyber law, in te l lectual proper ty and other socia l aspects

of informat ion technology. He is a lso the author of several trade and reference t i tles , includingWebster'sNew World Dictionary of Computer Terms,9th ed. (Hungry Minds) and Computers in Your Future, 4 the d . ( P r e n t i c e - H a l l ) . H e m a y b e r e a c h e d a t b p @ v i r i g n i a . e d u o r v i a t h e w e b a t : .

Knowledge, Technology, & Policy,Spr ing 2001,Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 93-102.


2/10

94 Kn owl edge , Technology, & Policy / Spring 2001

g inn ing t o st ir fo r p r ec i s e ly t he s am e r ea sons t ha t l a un ch ed t h e F ree So f t-wa re mo vemen t i n t he 1980s : t he r e a l i z a t i on t ha t a f o r-p ro f i t i ndus t ry was

ab ou t t o l ock up i nd i spe nsab l e pub l i c kn ow led ge and , i n so do ing , pose ag r av e th r e a t t o t h e a d v a n c e m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e a n d h u m a n w e l fa r e . T h ist ime , t he s t ake s a r e even g r ea t e r.

W h a t ' s t h e Prob lem?

I n w h a t f ol lo w s , I 'l l a rg u e t h a t h e a l t h y d e m o c r a c y d e p e n d s n o t o n l y o nthe ab i l i ty o f c i t i zens to access fac t s and ideas f ree ly, bu t a l so to p ro du cederivative works t h a t s u b s ta n t i al l y i n c o rp o r a t e a n d r e w o r k t h e m e a n s o fexpression f o u n d i n c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s . B e f o r e w a r n e d : b y c o n t e m p o r a r y

s t a nda rds , my pos i t i on is a dec id ed ly f r inge pe r spec t i ve , no tw i th s t a nd ingthe fact tha t , in my v iew, i t ap t ly charac te r izes th e v iew th a t p r eva i led dur-i ng t he Amer i can r epub l i c ' s f i r s t c en tu ry ( a po in t t o wh ich t h i s e s s ay r e -tu rns ) .

To b e s u r e , i t is w ide ly ag re ed - - e ve n t o da y - - t h a t t he f r ee f low o f f a ct sand i n fo rm a t ion i s imp or t an t t o a democ racy.Vi t a l t o a succe s s fu l de m oc -racy is a f lour i s h ing civil society, a " s p h e r e o f v o lu n ta ry, n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a la s s o c i at i o n s i n w h i c h i n d iv i d u a l s d e t e r m i n e t h e i r s h a r e d p u r p o s e s a n dno r ms " ( Ne t ane l 1996; I fo l l ow h is a rgu m en t c l o se ly he r e ) . A robus t c iv ils o c ie t y f os te rs a n e m b e d d e d a n d s e l f - p e r p e t u a t in g " d e m o c r a t i c c u l t u r e " t h a t

make i t r e s i s t an t t o t y r anny. Bu t such a cu l t u r e c anno t endu re i n t he ab -sence o f f ree access to facts--facts a b o u t w h a t h a s h a p p e n e d , w h a t t h eg o v e r n m e n t i s d o i n g , h o w d e c i s i o n s w e r e m a d e , w h o b e n e f i t s f r o m s u c hd e c i s i o n s - - a n d t h e ideas t h a t enab l e peop l e t o l i nk t he se f ac t s i n to mean -ing fu l pa t t e rn s by wh ic h t hey can en gag e i n pos it i ve po l i t ic a l a c t ion . Ofco u r se , copy r igh t make s f ac ts an d i dea s w ide ly ava i lab l e by p rov id ing i n -cen t i ve s f o r au tho r s and pub l i she r s t o make t hem so ; copy r igh t f u r t he r st h is pu rp ose by g iv ing no p ro t ec t i on t o t he f a ct s and i dea s , bu t on ly to t heau tho r ' s un iq ue exp re s s ion o f t he se f ac ts and i dea s , i n a copy r igh t work .F rom th i s pe r spec t i ve , vo i ced by neoc l a s s i ca l e conomis t s and l ega l s cho l -

a r s i n f l uenced by t he neoc l a s s i c a l v i ewpo in t , ex t end ing t he s cope and du -r a t io n o f c o p y r ig h t c a n o n l y e n h a n c e t h e c o n t r i b u t io n m a d e b y c o p y r i g h t e dwor ks t o d emoc ra t i c de l i be r a t i on .

B u t I w ou ld l i ke t o a rgue t ha t democ ra t i c de l i be r a t i on may l eg i t ima t e lyinvo lve app rop r i a t i ons o f a work ' s exp re s s ion a s we l l a s t he un de r ly i ngfac ts and i dea s. To rob an i dea o f i ts mo s t e l oqu en t exp re s s io n - - c on s id e r " Ihave a dream"or"Ask no t wha t you r coun t ry can do fo r you ; a sk wha t youcan do fo r you r co un t ry " - - i s to rob i t o f i ts li fe and fo rce, as N eta ne l (1996)com pe l l i ng ly a rgues . Th is po in t is e spec i a l ly va l i d w he n one cons ide r s a r-t is ti c o r po pu l a r works t ha t c an adva nce po wer fu l po l i t ic a l i dea s i n a com -

pe l l i ng ways. I n add i t i on , t he p u rpos e s o f dem oc ra t i c po l it i ca l de l i be r a t i ona r e s o m e t i m e s b e s t se r v e d b y p e r m i t t i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d c o m p l e t er e p r o d u c t i o n o f a n entire copyrighted work. For example , in 1971 , the NewYork Times s ta r ted a se r ies o f a r t i c les tha t re pro du ce d the t ex t o f a sec re tP e n t a g o n s t u d y o f t h e Vi e t n a m c on fl ic t, n o w k n o w n a s th ePentagon Papers.


3/10

Pfaffenberger 95

U n d e r P r e s i d e n t N i x o n ' d i re c ti o n , t h e U .S . J us ti ce d e p a r t m e n t a t t e m p t e dto suppres s t h e pub l i ca t i on o f t he Pe n tag on Pape r s on na t io na l s ecu r i t yg r o u n d s ; h o w e v e r, t h e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y r u l e d t h a t t h ec o n s t i tu t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s g i v e n to t h e f r e e d o m o f t h e p r e s s o v e r r u l e d o t h e rcons ide ra t i ons , i nc lud ing na t iona l s ecu ri ty. W ha t i s more , t h e ex igenc i e s o fpo l i ti c a l de l i be ra t i on r equ i r ed t he pub l i ca t i on o f t hefull text of t he Penta-gon Papers, fo r on ly t hen w ou ld c i t i z ens be ab le t o j udg e a ll t he nu anc es o ft h e c o m p e l l i n g q u e s t i o n p l a c e d b ef o r e th e m : t h e w i s d o m o f c o n t i n u i n g t os u p p o r t t h e S o u t h Vi e t n a m e s e r eg i m e .

Today, i t ' s not ent i re ly cer ta in the Pentagon Papers w o u l d s e e t h e l i g h t o fd a y, a n d a J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t b e n t o n s u p p r e s s i n g t h e m w o u l d d o u b t -l e s sly t u rn t o copyr igh t l aw ra the r t h an app ea l ing to na t io na l s ecu r i t y con -

c e rn s . C o n s i d e r w h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g t o F re e R e p u b l i c < h t t p : / /ww w.f reerep ubl ic .co m> ; for a lega l scholar ' s ana lys is , see Be nkle r 1999).

Un l ike mos t ne ws -o r i en t ed web s it es , F ree Repub l ic ' s reade r sh ip i s g row-ing a t an explos ive ra te , and the reason i s par t ly tha t , l ike o ther equa l lysuccess fu l expe r im en t s i n open media , F ree Repub l i c mak es fu l l and inno va t ive u se o f t heWe b 's p o t e n t i a l as a n e w c o m m u n i c a t i o n s m e d i u m . T h e t e r mopen mediar e f e r s t o news-o r i en t ed s i t e s t ha t r epub l i sh news a r t i c l e s i n a c l ea r ly de -f ined in te l l ec tua l con tex t and ope n ly i nv i te r eade r c om me n ta ry (Katz 2001) .Bu t F ree Repub li c goes mu ch fu r the r t h an mo s t op en m ed i a s it es , and tha t 's

why i t ' s i n t roub le . Use r s a r e pe rmi t t ed t o pos t news a r t i c l e sin their en-tirety. O n e c o u l d a rg u e t h a t s u c h a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a re e n t i r e l y l e g i t i m a t ewi th in t he s cope o f U .S . copyr igh t l aw, a s i t pe rm i t s un co m pe ns a t ed ex -ce rp ts t o t a l i ng 100% o f t he o r ig ina l copyr igh t ed ma te r i a l wh en do ing so isessen t ia l fo r e ffec t ive publ ic an a lys i s and pol i t ica l de l ibera t io n . A nd FreeRepub l ic ' s readers pos t the new s a r t icles in the con tex t o f an ex t remis t ,r i gh t -w ing na r r a t i ve i n wh ich the med ia i s s een to be l i t t l e more t han thetoo l o f the " l ibe ra l e s t ab l i shm en t " ; f o r example ,Time i s desc r ibe d as "TedTurner 's Co m m ie Rag ."The con tex t dem an ds pub l i ca t i on o f t he en t i r e text ,wh ich r eade r s t hen d i s sec t i n a way tha t o f t en r equ i r e s exac t ing a t t en t ion

to a sub t l e t u rn -o f -ph ra se bu r i ed i n t he mids t o f t he a r t i c l e . I n sum, F reeRepub l i c 's succes s i n fo s t e r ing a fo rum fo r po l i ti c al de l i be ra t i o n h ing es o ni ts r e a d e r s ' a b il it y t o a p p r o p r i a t e c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s w i t h o u t p a y m e n t o rp e r m i s s io n , r e p u b l is h t h e m a n d u t t e rl y t r a n sf o r m t h e m i n t h e c o n t e x t o f acaus t ica l ly c r it ica l nar ra t ive tha t sa t i rizes an d r id icu les the " l ib era l m edi a ,"and lays bare the ful l t ex t o f the a r t ic les for mas s ive ly invas ive su rgery o nFree Republ ic ' s opera t ing tab le .

I r ecogn ize t ha t F ree Repub l i c i s i ndeed fo s t e r ing the sp i r i t ed deba t eand de l ibe ra t i on t ha t is pa r t and pa rce l of a hea l thy dem ocrac y bu t t han kst o a la w s u it b r o u g h t b y t w o m a j o r n e w s p a p e r s(The Los Angeles Timesa n d

The N ew York Times),Free Repub l i c ' s days s eem to be numbered ; a Fede ra lj u d g e h as a l r e a d y i s s u e d a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t < h t t p : / /w w w . f r e e re p u b l i c . c o m / s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . h t m > f o r b i d d i n g F r ee R e p ub l icf rom rep ro duc ing a r ti cl es f rom the se n ewsp ape r s . I t s eem s l i ke ly t ha t F reeRepubl ic wi l l have to s top reproducing news a r t ic les in the i r en t i re ty, o r,


4/10

96 Kn ow ledg e, Technology, & Policy / Spri ng 2001

mo re l ikely, the s i tes ' c rea tors wi l l have the i r per son a l f inances des t r oyedin a ser ies of legal bat t l es an d w il l be forced, eventual ly, to c lose up shop.

Admit ted ly, Free Republ ic i s d i ff icu l t to defend . Cour t de l ibera t ions re -vea l t ha t F ree Repub li c 's f ou nde r h op ed to p ro fi t f inanc i a ll y f rom the hug enum ber s o f web use r s a t t r ac t ed by the s i te 's po l emica l f i r eworks , f ue l ed byt h e a p p r o p r i at i o n o f o t h e r s ' u n c o m p e n s a t e d w o r k . M o r e o ve r, t h e a g g r i ev e dnewspape r s a rgued tha t F ree Repub l i c ' s a c t i ons wou ld cu t i n to t he mar-ke t - -minuscu le , by mos t accoun t s - - fo r t he i r pay -pe r-v i ew a rch ives . S t i l l ,thes e ob jec t ions ignore the la rger i s sues a t s take . To a rgue t ha t one mu s teschew prof i t s in order to fos te r se r ious po l i t i ca l de l ibera t ion p laces c i t i -zens a t a se r ious, if no t fa tal , d i sadva ntag e v i s -a -v is we a l t hy me dia corpo -ra t ions . Should the Ne w York Timeshave been fo rced to r e inco rpo ra t e a s a

nonpro f i t i n o rde r t o pub l i sh t he Pentagon Papers? Moreove r, wh a t i n t e r e s t sF ree Repub l i c ' s r eade r s i s t oday ' s news , and the s i t e ' s commen ta r i e s ontoday 's new s , no t ye s t e rday ' s. I s e r ious ly doub t w he the r e i t he r o f t he p l a in -t i ff s could prove they ' re suffe r ing a loss of income f rom the i r l igh t ly-usedarch ives due to Free Republ ic ' s ac t iv i t i es . But the newspapers rep ly tha twh a t coun t s is t he p r inc ip le a t s take : t he r i gh t o f t he se new spap e r s t o haveexc lusive cont ro l over the d i s t r ibu t io n oftheir"properties"in t he new, ne t -w o r k e d m e d i u m .

In t he end , t he F ree Repub l ic ca se shows wh y the s i te ' s r i gh t -w ing pe r-spec t ive o n the so-ca l led " l ibera l me dia " i s fl at ou t wro ng . I f the " l ibera l

m e d i a " r e a l l y w e r e d r i v en b y p i n k o p o li ti ca l c o m m i t m e n t s , t h eTimesof ourl a rges t c i t i e s wou ld ac t i n such a way tha t neo l ibe ra l commen ta ry s i t e smode led on F ree Repub l i c cou ld emerge w i thou t f e t t e r s . I n s t ead , t hey ' r esu ing F ree Repub li c , and the r e su l t s ends a ch i ll i ng me ssag e to any onewh o wo u ld l i ke t o emu la t e F ree Repub li c 's l ead . W hy a re t he n ew spap e r sa t tack ing Free Republ ic? Call m e cynica l if you l ike , bu t in m y v iew, the" li b er al m e d i a " a re m u c h m o r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e b o t t o m l in e t h a n p r o m u l -ga t ing a po li ti c al pe r spec t ive . As m ed ia execu tives un de r s t a nd the oppor-tun i t ie s ava il abl e to t hem, t hey m us t a t tack any a t t em pt t o ho rn i n on anycom pe t i ng c l a ims to wha t t hey see a s t he i r exc lus ive r i gh t t o mark e t t he i r

"p rope r t i e s " on the In t e rne t . Tha t i s p rec i s e ly wh y the s am e n ew spap e r sa re d o g g e d l y d e f e n d i n g t h e m s e l v e s a g a i ns t a l a w s u it b r o u g h t b y fr e e la n c eauthors , who c la im they deserve a s l ice of the In te rne t t ake .

To sum up my a rgum en t , I t ake i ssue w i th t he c om m on ly a s se r ted a rgu -m en t t ha t copyr igh t l aw adequ a te ly s e rves t he goa l o f democra t i c de l i be ra -t ion by ens ur ing the d i ffus ion of fac ts and ideas th ro ugh ou t soc iety. Ge nu inepo l i t i c a l de l i be ra t i on may neces s i t a t e t he app rop r i a t i on and t r ans fo rma-t i on o f copyr igh t ed works i n ways un k in d to au tho r s and copyr igh t ho ld -e rs . To the ex t en t t ha t fo s t e r ing democra t i c d e l i be ra t i on ma t t e r s , copyr igh tl aw shou ld s t ri ke a ba l ance be t we en the i n t e r e s t s o f au tho r s and copyr igh t

ho lde r s , who na tu ra l l y s eek a r e tu rn f rom the i r works , and the l eg i t ima tein t e r e s ts o f a peop le w ho wo u ld g ove rn t hem se lves . As t he fo l l ow ing sec -t i on expla in s , t he re ' s a com pe l l i n g a rg um en t t ha t U .S. Copyr igh t s t ruckexac t ly the r igh t ba lance dur ing i t s f i r s t cen tury. S ince then , and par t icu-la rly s ince the 1970s , copyr igh t law has bee n h i jac ked by we al t hy copyr ig h t


5/10

Pfaffenberger 97

holders , and the con seque nces- - i l lustrated by Free Republic's pe rse cu tio n--are not h eal th y for democracy.

U.S. Copyright: The First lOOYears

From the passage of the f i rs t copyright legislat ion in Congress (1790)unti l the passag e of the Chace Act almo st exact ly one centu ry later (1891),the U.S. en joyed wh at m ay wel l have been the opt im um copyr ight regimefor democrat ic pol i t ical del iberat ion and al l of i ts posi t ive consequences,inc luding rapid soc ia l and econom ic developm ent . M and ated by the U.S.Con stitution (Article 1, Section 8), U.S. copyrigh t law gives copy right ho ldersthe r ight to duplicate , dis tr ibute and perform works that are"fixed in a

tangible means of expression"; however, the protect ion applies only to theexpression of the underlying facts and ideas, not to the facts and ideasthem selve s. In Fo lsom v. M arsh (9 F. Cas. 342 [C.C.D.Mass. 1841, No. 4,901]),Just ice Story introduced the Bri t ish doctr ine of fair use, which holds thatthe s ta te must indeed endeavor to secure for authors the enjoyment ofthe i r copyrights but not to the extent tha t do ing so p laces"m anacle s u ponscience" (Lord Ellenborough, quo ted in Loren 1997).

The fa ir use doct r ine es tabl i shes guide l ines- - com plex and s i tua t ional lydependent ones , to be sure- - tha t permi t au thors to appropr ia te the ex-press ion found in copyr ighted works wi thout seeking permiss ion or pay-

ing royal ty fees, so long as the app ropria t ion is don e for the p urpo ses ofanalysis , commentary or parody. But the U.S. system went much furtherthan this . As original ly formu lated, U.S. copyright law wou ld also havedelivered the entire copyrighted work--facts, i deas and express ion- - to thepublic for such purpo ses af ter a max imu m copyright period of only 28 years .After copyrights expire, works becom e part of thepublic domain. This prin-ciple has bee n decisively aff irmed by the U.S. Suprem e Co urt :" Th e copy-right term is limited so tha t the publ ic wi l l not be pe rm ane nt ly d epr ived ofthe fruits of an artist 's labors" (my emp has is; Stew art v. Ab end , 495 U.S.207, 228 [1990]). What is more, no copyright protection was given to any

work publish ed by foreign authors , and some argue the original U.S. copy-right law actual ly encoura ged U.S. ci tizens to pirate foreign works. To jus-t ify this policy, Alexan der Ha mi l ton poin ted to the n eed to foster infantAmerican industr ies . Protect ion for foreign copyrights was not recognizedin the U.S. unt il the p assa ge of the Cha ce Act in 1891 (Post 1998). In sum ,the democrat ic aims of copyright as envisioned in the U.S. Const i tut ion,"promoting the progress of science and the useful ar ts" , were obtained,during the f i rs t 100 years of the U.S. republic , not only by guaranteeingauthors a period of protect ion for their wri t ings, but also by wi thd raw ingthis pro tec t ion af te r a" l imi ted t ime "and by perm i t t ing no protec t ion wh at -

soever for foreign authors . Central to the Con st i tut ional con ception of copy-right , in short , is a f lourishing public domain in which authors can readilyappropriate the expression of other authors .

W h a t is the public domain , and wh y is i t so imp or tant to the growth anddev elo pm ent of a demo cratic civil society? Yochai Benkler, a law profess or


6/10

98 Kn ow led ge, Technology, & Pol icy ! Sprin g 2001

a t NewYork Un ive r s i t y, de f ine s t he pub l i c doma in i n t he se t e rms : " In fo r-m a t i o n i s " i n t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a tno person has a right toexclude anyone else from using the specified information in a particular w ay.Ino the r words , i n fo rma t ion i s i n t he pub l i c doma inif all users are equallyprivileged to use it" (Benkle r 1999). This is an e xcep t iona l ly imp or tan t def i -n i t i on because i t h igh l i gh t s t he im por t a nce o f t he pub l i c do ma in fo r po l it i -c a l speech : If one is mak in g u se o f a pub l i c dom a in do cum en t , on e i s f r eef rom the r es t r a in t t ha t mu s t neces s a r i l y acc om pan y the" f a i r u se" o f a copy -r igh t ed do cum en t ; a s t he cou r t s have r epea t ed ly s tr e s sed , j u s t w ha t cons t i -t u t e s " f a i r u se" i s imposs ib l e t o de f inea priori and res t s , u l t imate ly, on ac o u rt 's j u d g m e n t . E n s u r i n g t h e e v e n t u a l p a s s a g e o f c o p y r i g h t e d m a t e r i a li n to t he pub li c dom a in p rov ides t he o n ly su re way tha t f u tu r e wr i t e r s c an

fea rl e s sly app rop r i a t e w orks o f exp re ss ion , r ecom bine and r e fo rmu la t e t he mi n n e w a n d c o m p e l l i n g w a y s a n d m a k e t h e r e s u lt i n g re f o r m u l a t i o n a v ai l-ab le to the publ ic .

T h e D e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e P u b l ic D o m a i n

I f an expans ive and pe rmi s s ive d e f in i t i on o f f ai r u se and t he r ap id f l owof in fo rm at io n in to the publ ic do m ain a re v ita l to a th r iv in g c iv il soc iety,the U.S . i s in se r ious t rouble . Dr iven by lav i sh dona t ions f rom lobbyis t sr e p r e s e n t i n g w e a l t h y c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r s a n d m e d i a c o r p o r a t i o n s , t h e U . S.

Congre s s ha s pa s sed a s e r ie s o f l aws ( i nc lud ing t he no to r iou s D ig i ta l Mil -len n i um Cop yr igh t Act o f 1998) tha t no t on ly res tr ic t o r e l im ina te fa i r useinsofar as d ig i ta l media a re involved , bu t a l so c r imina l ize any a t tempt toc i r c u m v e n t c o p y ri g h t m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s ( e ve n if n o i n f r i n g i n g d u p li c a -t i on t akes p lace !) and ex t end t he d u ra t i on o f copy r igh t t o t he po in t o f nea r-pe rpe tu i t y (w i th ex t ens ions , mo re t h an 150 yea r s) . The m os t r ecen t exam pleof such leg i s la t ion is the C opyr ig h t Term Exten s ion Act (CTEA) tha t ex-tends ex is t ing copyr igh ts fo r 20 more years so tha t ca r toon f igures such asMickey Mouse w i l l r ema in p ro t ec t ed . One r e su l t o f CTEA i s t ha tno copy-righted works will enter the public domain for an entire generation. (For an

exce l l en t ove rv i ew o f t he t r ans fo rma t ion o f copy r igh t i n to some th ing ap -pro ach ing rea l p roper ty, see the exce l len t l ega l rev iew by F isher 1999, whi chis av a i l a b l e o n - l i n e a t < h t t p : / / e o n . l a w. h a r v a r d . e d u / p r o p e r t y 9 9 /h i s to ry.h tml> . ) Other l aws a t the s ta te l eve l , such as UCITA, would g ivethe fo rce o f l aw to " c l i ck -he re" l i c ense ag ree me n t s fo r d ig i t iz ed w r i t t enw o r k s . O n e s u c h l i c e n s e , t h e o n e y o u a g r e e t o w h e n y o u u s e A d o b e ' s"Gla s sboo k Reade r, " r epo r t ed ly fo rb id s l i c ensees f rom r ead ing t he w orka loud!

There ' s m ore leg i s la t ion on the way. For severa l years , the U.S . has be enmu l l ing over var ious vers io ns of a da ta bas e pro te c t ion b il l (fo r an over-

v iew, s ee ; for an upda t e ,s ee ) . The b i l l ' s impe -tus i s the U.S . Su pre m e Cour t ' s surpr i s ing dec i s io n in Fe is t vs . Rura l Te le -phone (499 U.S. 340 [1991]) , i n wh ich t he C our t r e fu sed t o r ecogn ize t ha t a t e l e -


7/10

Pfaffenberger 99

ph one book , de sp i t e t he unde n iab l e cos t and l abo r r equ i r ed t o a s semb le it,conta in s a fo rm of express ion of suff ic ien t c rea tiv i ty or o r ig ina l i ty to mer i tcopyr igh t p ro t ec t ion . The dec i s ion ca s t i n to dou b t w he th e r d ig i t i z ed da t a -bases , such as co l lec t ions of fu l l - tex t ne w sp ap er a r tic les , could be pro t ec te dby copyr igh t i n t he a bsence o f some so r t o f c r eat i ve o rgan iza t ion . Bu t t hewh o le po in t o f a r e l a ti ona l da t abase sys t em i s t o avo id o rgan iz ing the ma -te r ia l a p r ior i so tha t users can re t r ieve m ater ia l in the mo s t e ff ic ien t m an-ner poss ib le . Fe is t impl ies tha t da tabases c anno t be pro tec ted a t a l l - -w hich i swhy da tabase vendors a re so keen on c la iming ne w forms of pro tec t ion fortheir products . An oth er reas on l ies in the ne ed to br ing U.S. law into confor-mity with the World Intel lectual Property O rgan izat io n (WIPO) t reaty, wh ichcal ls for special forms of protect ion for databases . W hat 's general ly om it te d in

discussions of WIPO, howeve r, is the fact tha t U.S. data bas e an d sof tw arevend or s p l ayed a s ign if i cant ro le in shap ing the WIPO doc um en t s .

I f da tabase vendors succeed in the i r lobbying e ffor t s , fo r-prof i t vendorsof ne w spa pe r a r t ic les and sc ien ti f ic journa ls m ay be ab le to lock up notonly the express io n foun d in the se a r t ic les , bu t e ven the fac t s and sc ien t if icf ind ings con ta ined in t hem; a ma jo r impe tus fo r t h i s l eg i s l a t i on i s t o r e -s to re t he p r inc ip le , aba nd on ed in Fe is t, t ha t t h e" sw ea t o f one ' s b row" iswor th som e th ing a f te r all. Access t o such da t abases cou ld be con t ro l l ed bym e a n s o f c o p y r i g h t m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s ( C M S ) < h t t p : / / w w w. n a p . e d u /h t m l / d i g i t a l _ d i l e m m a / a p p E . h t m l > , t h e c i r c u m v e n t i o n o f w h i c h is a l r e ad y

a c r imina l ac t sub jec t to pena l t ies in excess of those used in cases of sec-on d-d eg ree m urde r i n mo s t U .S . s t at e s. To be su re, ma rke t econ om ics mayd e m a n d t h a t d a t ab a s e v e n d o r s d o n o t i m p o s e s t r o n g a cc e ss c o n s t ra i n t s o nusers of a rch iva l mater ia l s . But the p o in t i s s imply th is : they could . W hat i smore , t hey can do so on the basi s o f wh a teve r wh i m hap pen s t o occu r t othe m a t t he m om en t . Th is is a po in t be s t app rec i a t ed by no t i ng the l ong ,expens ive s t rugg le wage d by the AFL-C IO and o the r l abo r un ion s t o ga inacces s t o bus ines s da t abases o ff e red by Dia log In fo rma t io n Sys t ems , Inc .Un ion r e sea rche r s cou ld o f cou r se acces s t he s ame ma te r i a l by v i s i t i ng aun ive r s i t y l ib ra ry, bu t t he i ne ff i c iency o f non - co m pu te r i ze d r e sea rch t ech -

n iques p reven t s t h em f rom com pe t i ng e ff ect ive ly w i th t he i r co rpo ra t e coun-te rpar ts , such tha t the p lay ing f ield i s no lo nge r leve l .In sum, t he pub li c dom a in i s e s sen t i a l ly dead , f ai r u se has be en con -

s t r a ined to t he po in t o f i r r el evance , and d ig i t i z ed i n fo rm a t ion i s i nc reas -i n g ly l o c k e d u p i n sy s t e m s p r o t e c t e d b y D r a c o n i a n a n t i - c i r c u m v e n t i o npena l t ies . For now, you can s t i l l go to the l ib ra ry to access much of thed ig i t ized in form at ion for f ree , bu t you ' l l sacri f ice the e ff ic iency ga ine d f ro mus ing c om pu te r i zed sea rch too l s. An d w he n p r in t med ia f i nal l y d i s appea r,i t' s anyone ' s gues s w he t he r any t h ing f rom today ' s pub l i c l ib r ar i es w i l l su r-v ive in the i r p res en t form.

F i rs t S t i r ri n g s o f t h e O p e n Conten t R ebe l l ion

The t r ends d i s cus sed so f a r - - t h e i nc reas ing ly r i g id copyr igh t r eg ime , t hechi l l ing e ffec t on f ree spe ech of a sharp ly cons t r ic ted fa ir use re g im e, the


8/10

100 Knowledge, Technology, & Policy / Spring 2001

des t ruc t ion o f t he pub li c doma in , and the g ro wing am ou n t o f v it al in fo r-ma t ion tha t ' s l ocked up in sys t ems capab le o f en fo rc ing pay -pe r-v i e w ac -c e s s - h a v e l e d m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 s c i e n t i s t s w o r l d w i d e t o s i g n a n o p e nle t te r d e -m an d in g tha t s c ien ti fi c j ou rna l s i n t he f i eld s of med ic i ne and the l i fe sc i-ences re lease the i r copyr igh ted a r t icles a fte r s ix m on th s to an on- l ine publ icl i b r a ry, PubMed Cen t r a l ,w h i c hwo u ld p rov ide f ree and un re s t r i c t ed acces s to t he i n fo rm a t ion the se j ou r-na ls conta in . S igna tor ies to the le t te r a re re fus ing to publ i sh in journa lstha t won ' t coope ra t e w i th t he PubMed Cen t r a l i n i t i a t i ve .

W ha t ' s beh ind th i s dev e lo pm en t ? I t' s an a t t em pt t o c r eat e a ba l ancebe tween the need o f commerc i a l , f o r-p ro f i t pub l i she r s t o de r ive i ncome

f rom pu b l i sh ing sc i ent if ic j ou rna ls , and the con t r a s t i ng r i gh t o f t he pub l i cto have f ree and open acces s to t he k no wl edg e c r ea t ed by" t ens o f b i l li onso f do l la r s o f mos t ly pub l ic m on ey each year, and r ep re sen t i ng the o r ig ina lideas and m i l l ions o f hou r s o f ha rd work by hun dre ds o f t ho usa nds o f s ci -en t i s t s , and the vo lun ta ry pa r t i c ipa t ion o f hundreds o f t housands o f pa -t ien ts in c l in ica l s tud ies" (f rom the Publ ic Library of Sc ience FAQ ) . Many sc ien t if i c j ou rna l smake the i r a r t i c les access ib le to the publ ic a f te r s ix months , and ev idencesugges t s t hey do no t l o se mo ne y by do ing so ; subsc r ibe rs a r e w i l l i ng t o payfor the la tes t information, even i f older ar t ic les are avai lable for f ree .

Several journa ls have a l ready agre ed to p lay ba ll wi th the Publ ic Libraryof Sc ience, and they 've re leased the i r o lder co nte n t to th e a rch ive . Acco rd-ing to the Publ ic Library of Sc ience , the se a r t ic les a re par t o f a fas t -gro w-ing"pub l i c do ma in" o f c ruc ia l kno w led ge in me d ic in e and th e l if e s c i encestha t w i l l rem ain f ree ly ava i lab le to the publ ic . But don ' t be too sure . ThePubl ic Library of Sc ience a l lows the source journa ls to re ta in the i r copy-r igh t on t he r epu b l i shed works . Th i s me ans pub l i she r s can wi thd r aw the i rpar t ic ipa t ion a t any t ime, and they can a l so br ing lawsui t s aga ins t userswho app rop r i a t e and d i s t r i bu t e t he a r t i c l e s i n a way tha t i s no t t o t hepubl i sher ' s l ik ing .

W he n wi l l t he f i rs t l awsu it occu r t ha t dea l s w i th ma te r i a l app rop r i a t edf rom the Publ ic Library of Sc ience? It 's just a m at te r o f t ime . S upp ose I pu ttog e th er a t ex tbo ok co ns is t ing of c lassic a rt ic les in the las t t en years of thel i fe sc iences , and i t jus t happens to ea t in to the marke t for one of thesepub l i she r s ' books . D o you th ink they 'l l s it back con ten t ed ly ? An d ju s t imag-ine wha t wo u ld hap pen if I pu t t oge the r a s t r i ng o f a r ti cl e s cu l l ed from thePubl ic Library of Sc ience tha t demons t ra tes b ias in s tud ies funded by cer-t a in pha rmace u t i ca l com pan ie s . See you in cour t!

My po in t i s t hi s. I n t he absence o f a tr ue pub l i c doma i n , i n wh ich no onepe r son ' s c l a im to t he r i gh t s t o u se a work a r e i n any way sup e r io r t o any

o the r pe r son ' s , t hose who w ou ld m ake in fo rm a t ion f r ee ly ava il ab le mus tdeve lop an a l t e rna t ive to copyr igh t t ha t r ep l aces t he fun c t ions o f t he p ub -l ic dom ain for wr i t t en wo rks . The fa i lu re to do so i s to em broi l th e " f ree lyred i s t r i b u t ed" i n fo rm a t ion in a lega l quagmi re i nc reas ing ly in imica l t o t heexercise of f ree spee ch.


9/10

P f a f f e n b e rg e r 1 0 1

Licensing Holds the Key

A s m u c h a s I r e s p e c t t h e P u b l ic L i b r a ry o f S c i e n c e a n d t h e v a l u e s i t r e p -r e s en t s , th e r e 's a bi t o f n a i v e te a b o u t t h is m o v e m e n t i m m e d i a t e l y re c o g -n i z a b l e t o a n y o n e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e h i s t o r y o f f re e s o f tw a r e . P o s e d b e t w e e na n i n c r e as i n g l y r ig i d c o p y r ig h t r e g i m e a n d p u b l ic d o m a i n s o f tw a r e , w h i c h f or -p ro f i t companies cou ld appropr ia te , compi le and rese l l , t he a rch i t ec t s o f theF r ee S o f t w a r e m o v e m e n t r e c o g n i z e d a n e e d f or a T h i r d Way. T h e m o s t i m p o r-t a n t a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e fr ee s of tw a r e m o v e m e n t m a y w e l l li e in t h e l e ga la n d c o n c e p t u a l a r e n a -- s p e c i f i c a l l y, t h e G e n e r a l P u b l ic L i c e ns e ( G P L ) - - w h i c hp r o v i d e s a m e a n i n g f u l a l t e r n a ti v e t o t h e p r e v a i li n g c o p y r i g h t r e g i m e .

A s m a n y r e a d e r s o f t h is j o u r n a l k n o w , t h e G P L u s e s a f o r m o f c o n t r a c -

t u al e n c l o s u r e - - a s o f t w a re l i c e n s e - - t o i m p o s e c o n s t r a i n t s o n w h a t a u s e ro f a G P L - l i c e n s e d p r o g r a m m a y d o . S pe c if ic a ll y, t h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s p r e v e n ta u s e r f ro m d e n y i n g t o o t h e r s t h e s a m e u s e r r ig h t s t h a t w e r e g r a n t e d w h e nt h e p r o g r a m w a s o b t a i n e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o a cc e s s t h e s o u r c e c o d e ,t h e r i g h t t o d u p l i c a t e a n d d i s t r i b u t e t h e s o f t w a r e f r ee ly, a n d t h e r i g h t t om a k e d e r iv a t iv e w o r k s o u t o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o d e . A l t h o u g h t h e G P L d o e sn o t p r e v e n t u s e r s f r o m s e ll in g G P L - l i c e n s e d w o r k s , it d o es p r e v e n t t h e mf r o m c o p y r i g h t i n g t h e s o f t w a r e i n a n y w a y t h a t d e p a r t s f r o m t h e G P L , c l os -i n g u p t h e c o d e s o t h a t u s e r s c a n n o t a c c e s s it o r m a k i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s tu s e rs w h o m a k e u n a u t h o r i z e d c o p ie s o f de r iv a ti v e w o rk s .

We r e t h e a r t i c l e s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e P u b l i c L i b r a r y o f S c i e n c e m a d e a v a i l -a b le b y m e a n s o f a li c e n s e s im i l a r t o t h e G P L , t h o s e w h o w i s h e d t o u s e t h i si n f o r m a t i o n f re e ly c o u ld d o s o w i t h a c l e ar c o n s c i e n c e a n d w i t h o u t f e a r o fu n e x p e c t e d l e g al p e r s e c u ti o n . T h a t 's n o t t r u e a t t h e m o m e n t , a n d , f r o m t h ep e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e F r e e S o f t w a r e m o v e m e n t , t h e P u b l i c L i b ra r y o f S c i e n c em a y b e m a k i n g a s e r i o u s m i s t a k e .

T h a t s a i d , i t ' s f a r f r o m c l e a r j u s t w h a t a n o p e n - c o n t e n t m o d e l s h o u l dl o o k l ik e a n d h o w b e s t t o p r o t e c t w r i t t e n w o r k u s i n g a m o d e l s d e r i v e df r o m t h e F r ee S o f t w a r e m o v e m e n t . I n f u tu r e a r t ic l es I w i ll a t t e m p t t o e x -a m i n e a va r ie t y o f o p e n - c o n t e n t m o d e l s d e v e l o p e d t h u s far, i n c l u d i n g t h e

F r ee S o f t w a r e F o u n d a t i o n ' s o f f e r in g , a n d c ri ti ca ll y a n a l y z e t h e i r u s e f u l n e s sf o r w h a t m i g h t b e a cr u c ia l ro l e: p r e s e r v i n g t h e p u b l i c ' s r i g h t t o a c c e s s f a c tsa n d i d e a s f r ee l y i n a w o r l d i n w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e c o m e a z e a l o u s l yp r o t e c t e d r i g h t o f r e a l p r o p e r t y.

References

Band, Jonathan. 1999. "Arm ageddon on the Potomac: The Collections of Inform ationAntipiracy Act,'D-LIB Magazine, January 1999.

Benkler, Yochai. 1999."Free As th e Air to Com mo n Use: First Am end me nt Co nstraints o nEnclosure of the PublicDomain," New York University Law Review, Vol. 74, May 1999.

Benkler, Yochai. 1999."The Free Republic Problem: Markets in In form atio n Goo ds vs. TheMarketplace of Idea," paper presented at a conference entitled Private Censorship/Public Choice: The New Age of Info rma tion Regulation, April 9-11, 1999.

Katz, Jon. 2001."Analysis:The Rise of Op en Media,"available on-lin e athttp:llslashdot.org!features/OO/O6119/1714239.shtml.


10/10

102 Kn ow ledg e, Technology, & Policy / Sprin g 2001

Loren, Lydia R 1997."Redefining the Market Failure Approach to Fair Use in an Era ofCopyright Permission Systems, " Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 5, No. 1 Fall1997.

Netanel, Nell W. 1996."Copyright and a democrat ic civil society,'Yale Law Journal,Vol. 106,No. 2, November 1996, pp. 283-387.

Post, David G. 1998."Some Though ts on the Political Eco nom y of Intellectual Pr operty : ABrief Look at the International Copyright Relations of the United States," NationalBureau of Asian Research, Confe rence on In tellectual Property, Congqing, China, Sep-tember 1998.

Yu, Peter K."Evolving Protection for Databases,'JurisNotes.com (viewed April 3, 2001).

Documents

Why Open Content Matters