Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings 2005 Page: 32
This book is part of the collection entitled: UNT Scholarly Works and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium
32
album was a major hit, and was even reviewed in The New York
Times.49
PROSPECTS
If the music and film industries continue to tighten the reins on use
and access, they will strangle the public domain and the
information commons. This trend presents a much greater threat to
American culture than just a chilling effect on scholarship and
creativity. Shrinking the information and cultural commons
starves the public sphere of elements of discourse, the raw material
for decision-making, imagination, and humor. In addition, these
industries will fuel the growing outrage about these and other
examples of copyright holders using their new legal powers to
stifle criticism and undermine legitimate uses of their material.
Loud protests have emerged from communities of software
producers, artists, writers, librarians, and media activists. Activist
organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and
publicknowledge.org are struggling to accurately define the
"public interest" in copyright and debating how best to articulate
the issues to a diverse public. At one point, Napster had 77 million
registered users, more than twice the number of users that
American Online enjoys. That means there were 77 million
potential infringers walking our streets. And there are few
Americans who have not wondered about the intrusive power of
that video mattress tag-the FBI warning at the start of every
rented videotape.
But we can't have the conversation that would lead us to that best
possible copyright system as long as we continue to work within
the limited rhetorical frameworks that we have inherited. We
make a grave mistake when we choose to engage in discussions of
copyright along the terms of "property." Copyright is not
"property" as commonly understood. It is a specific state-granted
monopoly issued for particular policy reasons. While technically,
such terms describe real property as well, the public understanding
of property is more fundamental, more exclusive, more natural,
and precedes specific policy choices the state may make about its
regulation and dispensation. When we engage in "property talk,"
we can't compete with the content industries. It's impossible to
have a clear and reasonable discussion about what sort of copyright
system might be best for the United States and the world as long as
those who hold inordinate interest in copyright maximalization can
cry "theft" at any mention of fair use or users' rights. This is the
"property-talk trap": You can't argue for theft.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View two pages within this book that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Halbert, Martin; Finegan, Carrie & Skinner, Katherine. Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings 2005, book, October 14, 2005; [Atlanta, Georgia]. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc97947/m1/36/?q=architectural+drawings: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; .