C Journal

8/8/2019 C Journal

1/9

16/09/10 7:13 PMRecovering Fair Use | Steve Collins | M/C Journal

Page 1 of 9http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105

Other Publications...

Reading ToolsReview policyAbout the author

How to cite this

Indexing metadata

Print version

Notify colleague*

Email the author*

Add comment*

Finding References

This work is licensed undera Creative CommonsAttribution - Noncommercial- No Derivatives 3.0License.

USERNAME

PASSWORD

REMEMBERME

M/C JOURNAL

M/C HOME

CURRENT ISSUE

UPCOMING ISSUES

ARCHIVES

CONTRIBUTORS

ABOUT M/CJOURNAL

LOG IN / REGISTER

USER

Log In

SUBSCRIPTIONS

JOURNAL CONTENT

SEARCH

All

Search

BROWSE

BY ISSUE

BY AUTHOR

BY TITLE

INFORMATION

FOR READERS

FOR AUTHORS

FOR LIBRARIANS

FONT SIZE

JOURNAL HELP

JOURNAL HELP

M/C Journal, Vol. 11, No. 6 (2008) -'recover'

Home > Vol. 11, No. 6 (2008) > Steve Collins

Recovering Fair Use

Steve Collins Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2008 'recover'

Introduction

The Internet (especially in the so-called Web 2.0phase), digital media and file-sharing networkshave thrust copyright law under public scrutiny,provoking discourses questioning what is fair inthe digital age. Accessible hardware and softwarehas led to prosumerism creativity blending mediaconsumption with media production to create new worksthat are freely disseminated online via popular video-sharing Web sites such as YouTube or genre specificmusic sites like GYBO (Get Your Bootleg On) amongstmany others. The term prosumer is older than the

Web, and the conceptual convergence of producer andconsumer roles is certainly not new, for at electricspeeds the consumer becomes producer as the publicbecomes participant role player (McLuhan 4). Similarly,Tofflers Third Wave challenges old powerrelationships and promises to heal the historic breachbetween producer and consumer, giving rise to the prosumer economics (27). Prosumption blurs thetraditionally separate consumer and producer creating anew creative era of mass customisation of artefactsculled from the (copyrighted) media landscape (Tapscott

62-3). Simultaneously, corporate interests dependentupon the protections provided by copyright law lobby foraugmented rights and actively defend their intellectualproperty through law suits, takedown notices andtechnological reinforcement. Despite a lackdemonstrable economic harm in many cases, thepropertarian approach is winning and frequently leadingto absurd results (Collins).

The balance between private and public interests increative works is facilitated by the doctrine of fair use

(as codified in the United States Copyright Act 1976,section 107). The majority of copyright laws contain fair exceptions to claims of infringement, but fair use
http://openhelp%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/help')http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105#http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105#http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/librarianshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/archivehttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/rsshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/rss2http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/librarianshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/titleshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/atomhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/loginhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/archivehttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/showToc/currenthttp://www.media-culture.org.au/http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://www.gybo5.com/http://www.gybo5.com/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/bio/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/findingReferences/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/metadata/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/captureCite/105/0/MlaCitationPlugin');http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcesshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://www.media-culture.org.au/http://www.media-culture.org.au/http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.htmlhttp://www.gybo5.com/http://www.youtube.com/http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/bio/105/0');http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105/0http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/view/recoverhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/indexhttp://www.media-culture.org.au/http://openhelp%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/help')http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105#http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105#http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/105#http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/librarianshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/readershttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/titleshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/archivehttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/rsshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/rss2http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/gateway/plugin/WebFeedGatewayPlugin/atomhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/user/registerhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/loginhttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/abouthttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/search/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/archivehttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/information/authorshttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/showToc/currenthttp://www.media-culture.org.au/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/findingReferences/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/printerFriendly/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/metadata/105/0');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/captureCite/105/0/MlaCitationPlugin');http://openrtwindow%28%27http//journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/bio/105/0');http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess

8/8/2019 C Journal

2/9



LANGUAGE

English

OPEN JOURNAL SYSTEMS

OPEN JOURNALSYSTEMS

is characterised by a flexible, open-ended approach thatallows the law to flex with the times. Until recently thedefence was unique to the U.S., but on 2 January Israelamended its copyright laws to include a fair usedefence. (For an overview of the new Israeli fair useexception, see Efroni.) Despite its flexibility, fair use hasbeen systematically eroded by ever encroachingcopyrights.

This paper argues that copyright enforcement has spunout of control and the raison dtre of the law has shiftedfrom being an engine of free expression (Harper &Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S.539, 558 (1985)) towards a legal regime for intellectualproperty that increasingly looks like the law of realproperty, or more properly an idealized construct of thatlaw, one in which courts seeks out and punish virtuallyany use of an intellectual property right by another(Lemley 1032). Although the copyright landscape

appears bleak, two recent cases suggest that fair usehas not fallen by the wayside and may well recover. Thispaper situates fair use as an essential legal and culturalmechanism for optimising creative expression.

A Brief History of Copyright

The law of copyright extends back to eighteenth centuryEngland when the Statute of Anne (1710) was enacted.Whilst the length of this paper precludes an in depthanalysis of the law and its export to the U.S., it is

important to stress the goals of copyright. Copyright inthe American tradition was not meant to be a propertyright as the public generally understands property. Itwas originally a narrow federal policy that granted alimited trade monopoly in exchange for universal useand access (Vaidhyanathan 11). Copyright wasdesigned as a right limited in scope and duration toensure that culturally important creative works were notthe victims of monopolies and were free (as latermandated in the U.S. Constitution) to promote theprogress. During the 18th century English copyright

discourse Lord Camden warned against propertarianapproaches lest all our learning will be locked up in thehands of the Tonsons and the Lintons of the age, whowill set what price upon it their avarice chooses todemand, till the public become as much their slaves, astheir own hackney compilers are (Donaldson v. Becket17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 1000). Camdenssentiments found favour in subsequent years withmembers of the North American judiciary reiterating thatcopyright was a limited right in the interests of societythe laws primary beneficiary (see for example, Wheatonv. Peters 33 US 591 [1834]

;Fox Film Corporation v.

Doyal 286 US 123 [1932]; US v. Paramount Pictures334 US 131 [1948]; Mazer v. Stein 347 US 201, 219
http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

8/8/2019 C Journal

3/9



[1954]; Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aitken 422U.S. 151 [1975]; Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. 440US 257 [1979]; Dowling v. United States 473 US 207[1985]; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. NationEnterprises 471 U.S. 539 [1985]; Luther R. Campbella.k.a. Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.510 U.S 569 [1994]).

Putting the Fair in Fair Use

In Folsom v. Marsh9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)(No. 4,901) Justice Storey formulated the modern shapeof fair use from a wealth of case law extending back to1740 and across the Atlantic. Over the course of onehundred years the English judiciary developed arelatively cohesive set of principles governing the use ofa first authors work by a subsequent author withoutconsent. Storeys synthesis of these principles proved socomprehensive that later English courts would look tohis decision for guidance (Scott v. Stanford L.R. 3 Eq.718, 722 (1867)). Patry explains fair use as integral tothe social utility of copyright to encourage. . . learnedmen to compose and write useful books by allowing asecond author to use, under certain circumstances, aportion of a prior authors work, where the secondauthor would himself produce a work promoting thegoals of copyright (Patry 4-5).

Fair use is a safety valve on copyright law to preventoppressive monopolies, but some scholars suggest that

fair use is less a defence and more a right thatsubordinates copyrights. Lange and Lange Andersonargue that the doctrine is not fundamentally aboutcopyright or a system of property, but is ratherconcerned with the recognition of the public domain andits preservation from the ever encroaching advances ofcopyright (2001). Fair use should not be understood assubordinate to the exclusive rights of copyright owners.Rather, as Lange and Lange Anderson claim, thedoctrine should stand in the superior position: thecomplete spectrum of ownership through copyright can

only be determined pursuant to a consideration of whatis required by fair use (Lange and Lange Anderson 19).The language ofsection 107 suggests that fair use is notsubordinate to the bundle of rights enjoyed by copyrightownership: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . isnot an infringement of copyright (Copyright Act 1976,s.107). Fair use is not merely about the marketplace forcopyright works; it is concerned with what Weinrebrefers to as a communitys established practices andunderstandings (1151-2). This argument boldly

suggests that judicial application of fair use hasconsistently erred through subordinating the doctrine tocopyright and considering simply the effect of the
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

8/8/2019 C Journal

4/9



appropriation on the market place for the original work.

The emphasis on economic factors has led courts tosympathise with copyright owners leading to apropertarian or Blackstonian approach to copyright(Collins; Travis) propagating the myth that any use ofcopyrighted materials must be licensed. Law and mediareports alike are potted with examples. For example, in

Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al v. Dimension Films et al 383F. 3d 400 (6th Cir. 2004) a Sixth Circuit Court ofAppeals held that the transformative use of a three-noteguitar sample infringed copyrights and that musiciansmust obtain licence from copyright owners for everyappropriated audio fragment regardless of duration orrecognisability. Similarly, in 2006 Christopher Knightself-produced a one-minute television advertisement tosupport his campaign to be elected to the board ofeducation for Rockingham County, North Carolina. As afan of Star Wars, Knight used a makeshift Death Star

and lightsaber in his clip, capitalising on the imagery ofthe Jedi Knight opposing the oppressive regime of theEmpire to protect the people. According to an interviewin The Register the advertisement was well received bylocal audiences prompting Knight to upload it to hisYouTube channel. Several months later, Knights clipappeared on Web Junk 2.0, a cable show broadcast byVH1, a channel owned by media conglomerate Viacom.Although his permission was not sought, Knight waspleased with the exposure, after all how often does alocal school board ad wind up on VH1? (Metz).

Uploading the segment ofWeb Junk 2.0 featuring theadvertisement to YouTube, however, led Viacom toquickly issue a take-down notice citing copyrightinfringement. Knight expressed his confusion at theapparent unfairness of the situation: Viacom says that Icant use my clip showing my commercial, claiming copyinfringement? As we say in the South, thats ass-backwards (Metz).

The current state of copyright law is, as Patry says,depressing:

We are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illnessstage ... things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law hasabandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and thecreation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are topreserve existing failed business models, to suppress new businessmodels and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfallprofits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which isbeneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyrightlaw we used to know can never be put back together.

The erosion of fair use by encroaching private interestsrepresented by copyrights has led to strong critiques

8/8/2019 C Journal

5/9



leveled at the judiciary and legislators by Lessig, McLeodand Vaidhyanathan. Free culture proponents warn thatan overly strict copyright regime unbalanced by anequally prevalent fair use doctrine is dangerous tocreativity, innovation, culture and democracy. After all,

few, if any, things ... are strictly original throughout. Every book in

literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, anduse much which was well known and used before. No man creates anew language for himself, at least if he be a wise man, in writing abook. He contents himself with the use of language already knownand used and understood by others (Emerson v. Davis, 8 F. Cas.615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845), qted in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 62 U.S.L.W. at 4171 (1994)).

The rise of the Web 2.0 phase with its emphasis on end-user created content has led to an unrelenting wave of

creativity, and much of it incorporates or mashes upcopyright material. As Negativland observes, freeappropriation is inevitable when a populationbombarded with electronic media meets the hardware[and software] that encourages them to capture it andcreatively express themselves through appropriatedmedia forms (251).

The current state of copyright and fair use is bleak, butnot beyond recovery. Two recent cases suggest aresurgence of the ideology underpinning the doctrine offair use and the role played by copyright.

Lets Go Crazy

In Lets Go Crazy #1 on YouTube, Holden Lenz (theneighteen months old) is caught bopping to a barelyrecognizable recording of Princes Lets Go Crazy in hismothers Pennsylvanian kitchen. The twenty-nine secondlong video was viewed a mere twenty-eight times byfamily and friends before Stephanie Lenz received anemail from YouTube informing her of its compliance witha Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down

notice issued by Universal, copyright owners of Princesrecording (McDonald). Lenz has since filed acounterclaim against Universal and YouTube hasreinstated the video. Ironically, the media exposuresurrounding Lenzs situation has led to the video beingviewed 633,560 times at the time of writing. Commentsassociated with the video indicate a less than reverentialopinion of Prince and Universal and support the fairnessof using the song. On 8 Aug. 2008 a Californian DistrictCourt denied Universals motion to dismiss Lenzscounterclaim. The question at the centre of the court

judgment was whether copyright owners should consider the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith beliefthat use of the material in the manner complained of is
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ

8/8/2019 C Journal

6/9



not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or thelaw. The court ultimately found in favour of Lenz andalso reaffirmed the position of fair use in relation tocopyright. Universal rested its argument on two keypoints. First, that copyright owners cannot be expectedto consider fair use prior to issuing takedown noticesbecause fair use is a defence, invoked after the actrather than a use authorized by the copyright owner orthe law. Second, because the DMCA does not mentionfair use, then there should be no requirement toconsider it, or at the very least, it should not beconsidered until it is raised in legal defence.

In rejecting both arguments the court accepted Lenzsargument that fair use is an authorised use ofcopyrighted materials because the doctrine of fair use isembedded into the Copyright Act 1976. The courtsubstantiated the point by emphasising the language ofsection 107. Although fair use is absent from the DMCA,

the court reiterated that it is part of the Copyright Actand that notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106and 106A a fair use is not an infringement ofcopyright (s.107, Copyright Act 1976). Overzealousrights holders frequently abuse the DMCA as a means toquash all use of copyrighted materials withoutconsidering fair use. This decision reaffirms that fair use should not be considered a bizarre, occasionallytolerated departure from the grand conception of thecopyright design but something that it is integral to theconstitution of copyright law and essential in ensuring

that copyrights goals can be fulfilled (Leval 1100).

Unlicensed musical sampling has never fared well in thecourtroom. Three decades of rejection andadmonishment by judges culminated in BridgeportMusic, Inc., et al v. Dimension Films et al 383 F. 3d 400(6th Cir. 2004): Get a license or do not sample. We donot see this stifling creativity in any significant way wasthe ruling on an action brought against an unlicenseduse of a three-note guitar sample under section 114, anaudio piracy provision. The Bridgeport decision soundeda death knell for unlicensed sampling, ensuring that onlyartists with sufficient capital to pay the piper couldlegitimately be creative with the wealth of recordedmusic available. The cost of licensing samples can oftenoutweigh the creative merit of the act itself as discussedby McLeod (86) and Beaujon (25). In August 2008 theSupreme Court of New York heard EMI v. Premise Mediain which EMI sought an injunction against an unlicensedfifteen second excerpt of John Lennons Imaginefeatured in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, acontroversial documentary canvassing alleged chilling ofintelligent design proponents in academic circles. (The

family of John Lennon and EMI had previously failed topersuade a Manhattan federal court in a similar action.)
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/EMI+v.+Premise+PI+Order.pdf

8/8/2019 C Journal

7/9



The court upheld Premise Medias arguments for fair useand rejected the Bridgeport approach on which EMI hadrested its entire complaint. Justice Lowe criticised theBridgeport court for its failure to examine the legislativeintent of section 114 suggesting that courts should lookto the black letter of the law rather than blindly acceptpropertarian arguments. This decision is of particularimportance because it establishes that fair use appliesto unlicensed use of sound recordings and re-establishesde minimis use.

Conclusion

This paper was partly inspired by the final entry oneminent copyright scholar William Patrys personal

copyright law blog (1Aug. 2008). A copyright lawyer forover 25 years, Patry articulated his belief that copyrightlaw has swung too far away from its initial objectivesand that balance could never be restored. The two casespresented in this paper demonstrate that fair use andtherefore balance can be recovered in copyright. Thefederal Supreme Court and lower courts have stressedthat copyright was intended to promote creativity andhave upheld the fair doctrine, but in order for thebalance to exist in copyright law, cases must comebefore the courts; copyright myth must be challenged.As McLeod states, the real-world problems occur wheninstitutions that actually have the resources to defendthemselves against unwarranted or frivolous lawsuitschoose to take the safe route, thus eroding fair

use(146-7).

References

Beaujon, Andrew. Its Not the Beat, Its the Mocean.CMJ New Music Monthly. April 1999.

Collins, Steve. Good Copy, Bad Copy: Covers, Samplingand Copyright.M/C Journal 8.3 (2005). 26 Aug. 2008http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/02-collins.php.

. Property Talk and the Revival of BlackstonianCopyright. M/C Journal 9.4 (2006). 26 Aug. 2008http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/5-collins.php.

Donaldson v. Becket 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History,col. 953.

Efroni, Zohar. Israels Fair Use.The Center for Internetand Society (2008). 26 Aug. 2008http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5670.

Lange, David, and Jennifer Lange Anderson. Copyright,Fair Use and Transformative Critical Appropriation.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5670http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/5-collins.phphttp://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/02-collins.php

8/8/2019 C Journal

8/9



Conference on the Public Domain, Duke Law School.2001. 26 Aug. 2008http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/langeand.pdf.

Lemley, Mark. Property, Intellectual Property, and FreeRiding.Texas Law Review83 (2005): 1031.

Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas. New York:

Random House, 2001.

. Free Culture.New York: Penguin, 2004.

Leval, Pierre. Toward a Fair Use Standard.HarvardLaw Review103 (1990): 1105.

McDonald, Heather. Holden Lenz, 18 Months, versusPrince and Universal Music Group. About.com: MusicCareers 2007. 26 Aug. 2008http://musicians.about.com/b/2007/10/27/holden-lenz-

18-months-versus-prince-and-universal-music-group.htm.

McLeod, Kembrew. How Copyright Law Changed HipHop: An interview with Public Enemys Chuck D andHank Shocklee. Stay Free 2002. 26 Aug. 2008http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/public_enemy.html.

. Freedom of Expression: Overzealous CopyrightBozos and Other Enemies of Creativity. United States:Doubleday, 2005.

McLuhan, Marshall, and Barrington Nevitt. Take Today:The Executive as Dropout. Ontario: Longman Canada,1972.

Metz, Cade. Viacom Slaps YouTuber for Behaving likeViacom. The Register 2007. 26 Aug. 2008http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/30/viacom_slaps_pol/.

Negativland, ed. Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U andthe Numeral 2. Concord: Seeland, 1995.

Patry, William. The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law.Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 1985.

. End of the Blog.The Patry Copyright Blog. 1Aug. 2008. 27 Aug. 2008http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html.

Tapscott, Don. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril inthe Age of Networked Intelligence. New York: McGraw

Hill, 1996.

Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave. London, Glasgow,
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.htmlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/30/viacom_slaps_pol/http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/public_enemy.htmlhttp://musicians.about.com/b/2007/10/27/holden-lenz-18-months-versus-prince-and-universal-music-group.htmhttp://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/langeand.pdf

8/8/2019 C Journal

9/9



Sydney, Auckland. Toronto, Johannesburg: WilliamCollins, 1980.

Travis, Hannibal. Pirates of the InformationInfrastructure: Blackstonian Copyright and the FirstAmendment.Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 15(2000), No. 777.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and Copywrongs: TheRise of Intellectual Property and How It ThreatensCreativity.New York; London: New York UP, 2003.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution -

Noncommercial - No Derivatives 3.0 License.

Supported by

Copyright M/C, 1998-2008 ISSN 1441-2616

About M/C Contact M/C Site Map

XHTML CSS Accessibility
http://www.media-culture.org.au/accessibility.phphttp://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/refererhttp://validator.w3.org/check/refererhttp://www.media-culture.org.au/site_map.phphttp://www.media-culture.org.au/contactUs.phphttp://www.media-culture.org.au/aboutus.phphttp://www.creativeindustries.qut.edu.au/http://www.media-culture.org.au/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Documents

C Journal