Intellectual Property:
The Attack on Public Space in Cyberspace

Howard Besser
Associate Professor
UCLA School of Education & Information

Just as large-scale economic forces are causing gentrification of our cities and the elimination of public spaces that allow culture and politics to flourish, powerful economic interests have also launched a full-scale attack on our public information spaces, many of which exist on the Internet. This article uses the disappearance of public spaces in our cities as a metaphor for the disappearance of public spaces in cyberspace. It focuses on the Content Industry's use of copyright law to assault the public domain and their attempt to turn all information into commodities. And it discusses the horrific implications of all of this on free speech, artistic endeavors, and our entire way of life.

The Importance of Public Space

Public spaces have played a fundamental role throughout history. From the time that humans first defined private spaces, public spaces have served as places where people have come together to exchange ideas. From the ancient Greek's Agora to the Middle Ages' Commons to early 20th century American urban streets and parks, public spaces have been centers for free speech and public discourse.

Historically, the public spaces of cities have been centers of diversity. Even when housing was segregated along class or ethnic lines, public spaces were where people from all kinds of different backgrounds were exposed to each other. City streets, parks, and public transportation were melting pots of cultural differences, places where one would encounter people who dressed and spoke differently, hear people expressing opinions that one would never hear amongst their "peers", see people engaged in activities one had never seen before. The diversity that people were exposed to in these public spaces was eye-opening, and led them to new ideas and to see beyond their insular world. In their book on the negative effect of the automobile on our cities, Safdie and Kohn discuss the vitality of public spaces in cities before cars took over:

"Urban historian Spiro Kostof defines pre-automobile cities as 'places where a certain energized crowding of people' took place. Historical cities provided intense and active meeting places for commerce, the exchange of ideas, worship, and recreation. Even dictatorships produced a wide variety of spaces for formal and informal public gathering. People of diverse backgrounds came to, and lived in, the city, knowing that this conglomeration of people and the interaction offered by it would enrich their lives." (Safdie & Kohn 1997, pp 12-13) Public spaces have served as centers for free speech. Because they are defined as areas which are open to everyone, even when attempts have been made to stifle speech (from prohibition of IWW speech-making in the early part of the century to attempts to remove the homeless in the latter part of the century), this stifling of speech has had to take place in public and in front of people who may have never before seen how authorities treat marginal groups. And despite periodic attempts to stifle speech, public spaces have still been one of the few places where new ideas can circulate in the open.

Public spaces are important for diversity and free speech, as well as for the exchange of ideas. The exposure to differences that takes place there helps new ideas germinate. Public spaces are important to the creative process.

The Disappearance of Public Space in our Cities

The latter half of the 20th century saw the rapid decline of intermingling in public spaces. The growth of the suburbs removed people from inner-city streets to low-density neighborhoods -- usually having a very narrow socioeconomic and ethnic make-up. The growth of the automobile removed people from the melting-pot of public transportation, and put them in an isolated metal chamber almost every time they left their homes.

With the rise of the suburbs we saw the creation of pseudo-public spaces that looked like public spaces on one level, but had key elements of public spaces stripped away. These pseudo-public spaces include Malls, theme parks, and sports stadiums. A pseudo-public space resembles a public space with its diversity of people. But Malls, stadiums, and theme parks are privatized spaces that are "sanitized" of certain elements. Attempts to control free speech in public spaces pale in comparison to the success of pseudo-public spaces in controlling speech. For example, most Malls prohibit leafleting or making speeches. Mall security guards routinely remove homeless people as well as anyone wearing what they deem to be gang colors. As a private space, Malls can control speech and looks. They can "sanitize" their environment. And they can prohibit activities that do not lead to their raison d'etre -- consuming commodities.

The last quarter of the 20th century saw a rapid disappearance of privacy in public spaces. While public spaces never afforded the privacy of homes, people have traditionally felt that they can do things in public without being monitored or tracked. And even though certain individuals might observe a person's single particular action, that person would still have expectations that they were only observed for brief moments and would feel that s/he could be "lost in the crowd". But in the last 25 years we've seen an enormous growth in devices to not only monitor but to record an individual in public as well as pseudo-public spaces. Cameras that were first installed in banks ostensibly to identify robbery suspects are now commonplace in all types of stores and throughout pseudo-public spaces like Malls. And in early 2001 it was revealed that every person entering the Superbowl had their photograph secretly taken and compared to an image database of "known suspects" (Slevin 2001). Cameras have flooded real public spaces as well -- being mounted on lamp-posts to fight crime, on public transportation to prohibit muggings, and at intersections to catch signal-jumpers. There are fewer and fewer public spaces devoid of monitoring cameras. And in coming years, a person's movements through both public and private spaces will be monitored through the global positioning systems (GPS) within their cellphones.

The monitoring and recording of people in public and pseudo-public spaces is likely to have a chilling effect on free speech and the expression of controversial views. For example, someone who would publicly castigate a government agency (such as the police or IRS) might fear retaliation if his/her statement were recorded. And awareness that one is being recorded is likely to affect other types of diversity as well (for instance, many people who anticipate being recorded will dress or groom themselves in a more conventional way than if they know they're not being recorded).

As public spaces disappear and as we see invasive recording entering both public and pseudo-public spaces, we're likely to see a diminishment of: free speech, diversity, and the creativity that comes from exposure to new ideas.

The Disappearance of Public Space in Cyberspace

Since the earliest days of the personal computer, this technology was seen as a vehicle to restore disappearing public spaces. Lee Felsenstein, one of the founders of the personal computer, advocated using this new tool to restore an information commons (Felsenstein). Felsenstein and many of his fellow personal computing pioneers envisioned that the Internet could provide a vast public space that would reflect diverse interests and encourage free speech and creativity.

For many years popular discourse framed the Internet as a diverse free speech zone where "anyone can be a creator". But in the early days of the WorldWide Web, public areas of the Internet became increasingly walled-off. In 1994 this author warned of the "colonizing effect" that commercial interests would have on the public space that the Internet then represented (Besser 1994). And in 1995 he discussed how control by large industries would supercede the public benefit and diversity aspects that the Internet had promised. Almost a decade later, we see Internet spaces increasingly fenced off, and peoples' actions increasingly tracked and recorded.

Much could be written about the various ways in which today diversity, free speech, and public spaces are disappearing. The remainder of this article focuses on just one particular area in which this is happening -- the disappearing information commons both online and in print due to the assertion of strong intellectual property rights. In the not-too-distant future, the raw material that 'zines and magazines (such as Processed World) recontextualize will be difficult if not impossible to use. Technological protection mechanisms combined with severe changes in copyright law will make it increasingly difficult to use drawings, photographs, and clip-art without first paying for permission to use it.

In the past several years we have seen a major effort aimed at overhauling intellectual property law. Under the guise of responding to the challenge posed by the increasing amount of information in digital form, the content industry (publishers, motion picture studios, music distributors, etc.) has engaged in a veritable assault on long-standing public interest practices. In what law professor Pam Samuelson has termed the "Copyright Grab" (Samuelson), the content industry is exploiting concerns over digitization and attempting to reshape the law by strengthening protection for copyrightsholders and weakening public rights to access and use material.

In the remainder of this article, the author first examines intellectual property lawís origins as an attempt to create a public good. He then discusses how both the advent of digital technology and the consolidation of control in the hands of the content industry have created new structural and economic conditions for intellectual property. He shows how the content industry has in the past tried to exploit changing underlying conditions in a effort to strengthen their ownership rights, and demonstrates how they are doing that again in the current environment. Finally, he cites the threat to "social good" from the content industryís continuing success at reshaping public policy.

The Origins of Copyright in the US

Though many copyright holders view copyright as an "economic right" that protects their ability to make money off content, US copyright law was actually established to promote the "public good" by encouraging the production and distribution of content. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states:

The Congress shall have power provide for the ... general welfare of the United States To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; [emphasis added] The stated goal of copyright is to "provide for the general welfare" and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by encouraging further creation. The rationale behind copyright is that granting creators temporary monopoly rights over their creations will encourage them to create more. The real goal of copyright is to ensure that new knowledge will be developed and circulated through society.

Underpinning much of the recent rhetoric by the "content industry" is a view of copyright as an unlimited economic right. This logic is misguided since the economic rights granted by copyright are just a byproduct of attempts to fulfill the societal need to increase creativity. Though it granted Congress the power to give creators monopoly control over their creations, the Constitution was careful to set controls on that monopoly by stating that it could only endure for "limited times".

Public Domain, Fair Use, and First Sale

Prior to the "digital age" a delicate balance had emerged between copyright holders on the one hand, and the general public on the other hand. Copyright holders had certain exclusive rights over their material, but those rights were tempered by access rights held by the public. The three most important public rights were the public domain, fair use, and first sale.

Copyright has always been just a temporary monopoly, and by Constitutional edict it can only last for a "limited time." When a copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. The public domain is a diverse unregulated public space. Anyone can draw on material in the public domain for any purpose whatsoever. Unlike material under copyright, no one can charge me for using the public domain or prevent me from using public domain material in a way that might offend someone. A rich public domain has allowed creativity to flourish. Because Romeo and Juliet is in the public domain, we can have a wide variety of creative interpretations of this work (from one set in contemporary Mexico to West Side Story), all without having to get permission from a copyright holder (who would not only charge for the use, but would also likely limit creative use that the holder didn't like). The public domain is a critical public space that is an essential part of both education and creativity.

Fair Use (a common practice which was codified into law in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Law) limits a copyright holderís monopoly over the use of his/her work by permitting copying under a limited set of circumstances for uses such as education, private study, and satire. The fair use doctrine assumes that these types of uses constitute a compelling enough social good that even if a copyright holder wanted to prevent such uses of their material, the law would not support them. It is fair use that allows students to photocopy copyrighted articles for personal use, teachers to read excerpts from copyrighted works in class, reviewers to quote from copyrighted works in their published reviews, and satirists to incorporate portions of copyrighted works into their satires.

The First Sale doctrine limits a rightsholderís control over a copy of a work to the very first time that copy is sold. According to first sale, anyone who purchases a work can then do what they want with that copy, even if the rightsholder opposes that use. First sale allows the purchaser of a work to resell it, lend it, share it, or destroy it -- without ever consulting the rightsholder. Among other social benefits, the first sale doctrine has permitted libraries, used bookstores, and used record stores to operate without having to consult with a rightsholder each time they lend or sell a work.

How the Digital Age is Different

The content industry fears that fair use and first sale in the digital age will cause them to lose significant control over their copyrighted content, threatening their profits. Because a digital work is so easy to copy, many rightsholders fear that fair use will provide a loophole for individuals who wish to redistribute a work to others. They also fear that first sale will permit their first buyer to redistribute a work for free, ruining the rightsholderís market and destroying authorship incentives. These fears have been the rationale stated by the content industry in their attempts to press for legislation which would virtually eliminate fair use and first sale in the digital world.

Here we will deal with two problems with the content industryís position: (1) that in the past they have raised the specter of massive financial loss due to copying, yet history has proved their fears groundless; and (2) that even if the content industry faces loss of control in the digital age, the legal changes they have come up with will result in an immense loss for the public, and tip the delicate balance of copyright law firmly on the side of the content industry.

When home videorecorders were first introduced in the United States in 1975, the content industry feared that these would be used for massive copyright infringement. In 1976 key members of the content industry (Walt Disney Productions and Universal City Studios) filed suit in US District Court requesting an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of Betamax videorecorders. They contended that these machines would cause them significant financial harm because individuals could use them for copying their intellectual property. A series of litigation followed, culminating in a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. et al.). This landmark decision recognized home videorecording as a fair use, and allowed Sony to continue marketing the machines (Bettig, Home Recording Rights Coalition, Marlow, Lardner).

In the course of litigation, representatives of the content industry strongly supported the Universal/Disney position. Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, called the Betamax a "parasitical" device (Lardner, page 115). He claimed that VCRs posed significant threats to the film industryís markets:

With 20 years of hindsight we can look back and see that none of these dire predictions have come true: the cable television industry is financially healthy, television advertising revenues havenít tumbled, and movie theaters still attract a healthy business. Ironically, the studios that tried to prevent the use of home videorecorders now make almost half their income from rentals and sales to the home video market that they had previously sought to eliminate as a threat to their profits.

In the past four years, legislators shaping intellectual property law for the digital age have heard vociferous testimony from the content industry concerning their fears of tremendous revenue losses unless copyright laws are tightened. Most of the proposed legislation has responded directly to these fears in ways that will effectively eliminate fair use and first sale in the digital age. Public interest coalitions (including libraries, educational institutions, and consumer groups) have asserted that legislation in the digital age should maintain the kind of balance between rightsholders and the public interest that existed with analog material, rather than tip this balance significantly towards the content industry. Attempts to remedy perceived threats to rightsholdersí profits create severe threats to public interests that have traditionally been protected by fair use and first sale.

Fair use is a powerful tool for both education and social commentary. This concept allows teachers to present small portions of a work for class discussion, and reviewers to quote from a work without obtaining permission from the rightsholder. Fair use also permits the repurposing and recontextualization of a work for the purpose of parody or social comment. Re-using something for a purposes other than its original intention is a fundamental part of creativity. Kids dress up and play-act in clothes made for grown-ups, they use tin cans for telephones, and they create collages from magazine photos and articles. Creative adults constantly repurpose content in a wide variety of social commentary situations (from rap music sampling, to Processed World collage illustrations, to postmodern art). The elimination of fair use would not only hurt education and social welfare, but could stifle the very creativity and content production that copyright was intended to foster. It would also drastically alter the delicate balance between rightsholders and information users.

Attempts to eliminate the first sale doctrine in the digital age raise even more critical issues. A key aspect of first sale has prevented the rightsholder of intellectual property from completely controlling who has access to it and how it is used. Though a publisher, newspaper, or Hollywood studio in the analog world might limit the audience for an initial set of sales, someone buying the work could turn around and sell it to anyone else. But in proposed digital age legislation, the purchaser of a work could not legally sell it or give it away without permission from the rightsholder. In a world without first sale:

The proposed elimination of fair use and first sale for digital material will gut much of copyrightís ability to promote the public interest, turning it into a vehicle that guarantees economic rights to copyright holders. This would continue a trend to increasingly favoring rightsholders over consumers and the public good.

What Has Copyright Become?

The framers of the US Constitution envisioned intellectual property law as guaranteeing a set of temporary monopoly rights to individuals -- "authors and inventors" to encourage the production of new works. Intervening economic changes have created the current situation in which individuals who create intellectual property have not had the resources or channels of distribution to disseminate their creations. Today, most creators have little choice but to sell their copyright to corporations who then disseminate these works. (For example, an individual author might have a hard time financing the printing of his/her book, but even if able to do so, s/he would not be able to distribute copies to bookstores without a major publisher or distributor. So the author is forced to sell the copyright to a publisher in exchange for printing, distribution, and a small portion of the profits.) For the most part, copyrights are not held by individuals, but by corporate entities who are part of the content industry. The content industry would argue that strengthening their position allows them to provide greater incentives to individual creators, but many creators vociferously challenge that notion (Tasini). Strengthening copyright laws does improve the position of the content industry by giving them a relatively untempered monopoly over content, but it does so at the expense of the public good. And it does little to encourage the creation of new content.

Proposed legislation that would turn copyright laws into economic guarantees for the copyright holders is just the most recent in a series of attempts by the content industry to tilt the balance in their favor. If content providers have their way, intellectual property use will move away from domains that have at least some provision for public good and social benefit (such as fair use and first sale) -- and move these dealings into arenas where only economic relationships apply.

"Limited Time"

The "limited time" duration of copyright guaranteed that works would relatively quickly enter the public domain. This provision was instrumental in ensuring that the law promoted the creation of new works, rather than the extraction of profits from content. The duration of a copyright guarantee has increased over time (see chart A). A 1709 law set copyright for 14 years. Prior to 1976, copyright was granted for 28 years and renewable for another 28 years. The 1976 Copyright Act increased the term to 75 years, and the 1998 Sonny Bono Term Extension Act increased the term still further -- to 95 years for corporations and 70 years after death for individuals.
Year Copyright Duration
1709 (British) 14 years
pre-1976 (US) 28 years + 28 year renewal
1976 (US) 75 years (corporate)

life + 50 years (individual)

1998 (US) 95 years (corporate)

life + 70 years (individual)

Chart A: Copyright Duration

After intense lobbying and public relations efforts, members of the content industry have indicated that they would like to see the public domain completely eliminated. In fact, provisions within the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act took works that had fallen into the public domain and put these back under copyright. The 2 companion 1998 copyright acts have taken a wide variety of materials that should be entering the public domain very soon, and placed these back under copyright control for at least another 20 years (which gives the content industry plenty of time to extend copyright for still another 20 years). Songs like Irving Berlin's Blue Skies, Harry Woods' When the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob Bobbin' Along, and Hammerstein and Kern's Ol' Man River and Showboat should all have entered the public domain next year, yet the new laws will place these all under copyright control for at least another 20 years. Stories by Virginia Wolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Hecht, Rudyard Kipling, P. G. Wodehouse, and Zane Grey have also been eliminated from the public domain for at least another 20 years.

Some content industry promoters defend their encroachments on the public domain by contending that the new economic models of the digital age will eliminate the need for a public domain. They contend that maintaining copyright in perpetuity allows them to create "micro-payment" delivery systems that will allow anyone to access older content for just a few pennies for each use. Their position fails to take into consideration that copyright is as much about control as it is about access, and that under the system they propose, rightsholders will still be able to prevent uses that they do not like. Following their logic would turn the public domain into a controlled pseudo-public space where information is clearly a commodity to be bought and sold.

This lengthening of copyright duration flies in the face of the Constitutional limitation on copyright which granted Congress the right to institute copyright protections, but only for limited times. The Constitutionally mandated goal of copyright is to encourage the production of new works, both by guaranteeing creators some exclusivity for a limited time, and by making sure that there is a robust public domain of copyright-free material that creators can draw on and incorporate into new works. It is absurd to think that 75 or 95 years is a "limited time", and even more absurd to rationalize that exclusive rights lasting beyond oneís lifetime would provide incentives that would encourage a creator to create more works.

In a February 1998 editorial, the New York Times (itself a major content-holder that benefits from strong copyright legislation) sharply criticized the extensions of copyright duration that have since become law.

...Supporters of this bill, mainly the film industry, music publishers and heirs who already enjoy copyright revenues, argue that extending copyright will improve the balance of trade, compensate for lengthening life spans and make American protections consonant with European practice. But no matter how the supporters of this bill frame their arguments, they have only one thing in mind: continuing to profit from copyright by changing the agreement under which it was obtained.

There is no justification for extending the copyright term. Senator Orrin Hatch argues that the purpose of copyright is "spurring creativity and protecting authors." That is correct, and the current limits do just that. The proposed extension edges toward perpetual patrimony for the descendants, blood or corporate, of creative artists. That is decidedly not the purpose of copyright.

Copyright protects an author by granting him the right to profit from his own work. But copyright also protects the pubic interest by insuring that one day the right to use any work will return to the public. When Senator Hatch laments that George Gershwinís "Rhapsody in Blue" will soon "fall into the public domain," he makes the public domain sound like a dark abyss where songs go, never to be heard again. In fact, when a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency.

...[T]he works in the public domain, which means nearly every work of any kind produced before the early 1920ís, are an essential part of every artistís sustenance, of every personís sustenance. So far Congress has heard no representatives of the public domain. It has apparently forgotten that its own members are meant to be those representatives. (NY Times, February 21, 1998 editorial)

Lengthening of copyright duration is particularly onerous in the context of other attempts to assert copyright over material either already in the public domain or about to enter it. Corbis Corporation (a digital image stockhouse wholely owned by Bill Gates) contends that when they digitize an image of an art work or photograph, their digitization creates a new copyright which will persist for the duration of copyright protection beginning with the date of digitization. If their contention that digitization is a substantial creative act is upheld by the courts, it will mean that the digital version of works already in the public domain will remain under copyright protection for an additional 95 years.

Proposed database extraction legislation would apply copyright to an entire database, and start the copyright duration clock ticking every time a new item was added to the database. Under the proposed legislation, every time an online collection of text or images added a new work to their database, it would extend the copyright duration term for anything that was extracted from their database. This would allow a database provider to create a perpetual copyright (by adding something new to the database every 90 years), preventing items in the database from ever entering the public domain. This legislation died in the 1998 Congress, but will be reintroduced in 1999 with strong backing from the content industry.

Recent attempts to overhaul the copyright law have been prompted by strong lobbying efforts from the "content industry". The content industry was one of the leading supporters of Clintonís first campaign for the presidency, and after taking office Clinton appointed former copyright industry lobbyist Bruce Lehman as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Lehman was given the task of managing efforts to overhaul the nationís intellectual property laws, and he was the driving force behind the Administrationís green paper and white paper recommendations on major changes to intellectual property laws (Samuelson).

As copyright legislation was passing through Congress, content industry lobbyists aggressively courted Congresspeople. The Association of American Publisers (AAP) hired former Congresswoman Pat Shroeder to head their organization and act as chief spokesperson. In the 1996 election, the content industry had already donated over $11 million to congressional campaigns, split fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans (Makinson). In the early part of the 1998 campaign (while copyright legislation was being debated in Congress), Hollywood connected donors gave more than $1.3 million to congressional campaigns (Mother Jones 400). The content industry also waged a strong public relations campaign, claiming that the American economy would suffer irreparable harm if copyright controls were not tightened. After the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act finally passed through Congress, an Associated Press story revealed that Disney had lobbied hard for the new law (particularly portions which extended copyright protection for an additional 20 years) because Disneyís copyright over characters such as Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Donald Duck were due to expire soon (Salant). Not surprisingly, a week after the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was signed into law, Bruce Lehman resigned his Administration post, having accomplished most of what he set out to do on behalf of the content industry.


For the past decade, most publishers have refused to sell material in digital form to libraries. Instead, they require libraries to license this material. Licenses are contractual arrangements, and publishers claim that rights such as fair use do not apply to these arrangements. This has put publishers on such a collision course with librarians, that AAP president Pat Shroeder regards librarians as the enemy. "Publishers want to charge people to read material; librarians want to give it away." (Weeks)

Under licensing schemes, material is leased rather than bought outright. This raises a myriad of concerns for libraries. Licenses are only for a limited number of years, and at the end of that period license fees may be raised drastically or, if the market isnít large enough, the material may be eliminated altogether. The licensor may eliminate particular items for economic reasons or because they are controversial, making it very difficult for a library to build collections or to maintain a historical record of the resources they have made available.

Site licenses of digital works of art can cause particular problems for faculty and students who build curricular or creative materials that incorporate these works. Faculty and students are hesitant to spend the extensive time needed to create new digital materials incorporating licensed digital images unless they can be sure that the campus license (and each individual image that was originally part of it) will continue in perpetuity, and that they can take their creations with them when they leave the campus. Faculty sabbaticals at another campus, faculty or students taking positions elsewhere, or even showing a portfolio to a potential employer would all be prohibited by most licensing agreements. This is a central problem to any type of licensing agreement; if a licensor did in fact choose to offer guarantees of continuity, that licensor would run the risk of a university deciding to cancel their license payments yet still maintain the continuity of access.

Licensing material in digital form can also raise privacy concerns. A recent trend in university licensing of digital material is for members of the university community to access that material directly from a central site maintained by the publisher, rather than from a local site mounted by the university. This type of architecture requires that each individual be identified to the publisher as a valid member of the licensed university community. This approach carries the potential for dangerous violations of the privacy that university researchers have come to expect. Libraries carefully guard circulation information, and many purposely destroy all but aggregate statistics to avoid having to respond to law enforcement agencies seeking an individualís reading habits. It is extremely unlikely that publishers will provide this kind of privacy protection. Today a large number of websites monitor the browsing that goes on at their site, tracking who is looking at what, how often, and for how long. A whole industry has emerged that purchases this kind of personal marketing information from site managers and resells it. In difficult financial times, even licensors who are committed to privacy concerns may find the temptation of payment for this kind of information difficult to resist.

Another key concern for libraries is the way in which licensing digital information will affect interlibrary loans (ILL). Due to consolidation in the publication industry, scholarly journal subscription costs have skyrocketed in recent years (Guernsey, Case, McCabe, Wyly). The only way that libraries have been able to respond to this is by developing cooperative purchasing agreements with other nearby libraries. But most licensing agreements for journals in electronic form prohibit ILL or any other form of access outside the immediate user community. Licensing has the potential of not only destroying librariesí recent response to the crisis of the rising cost of serials, but it may also destroy their historic cooperative lending practices. Libraries, which have traditionally cooperated to guarantee that users of even the poorest library could employ ILL to borrow materials that their library could not afford to purchase, are likely to find themselves prohibited by licensing agreements from engaging in ILL.

Intellectual Property Law Used to Suppress Creativity and Free Speech

The increasing use of licensing schemes to avoid domains (like fair use) where the public good must be taken into consideration is part of a larger recent trend where commercial transactions take precedent over what used to be regarded as public rights or part of the public good.

In recent years, libel laws have been used to try to suppress criticisms that have been traditionally protected by free speech. These lawsuits, filed by corporate entities against individuals who have criticized them, have laid the burden of proof upon the defendants, forcing them to prove that all their criticisms were true. In 1998 Oprah Winfrey won an expensive court battle defending herself against a $12 million lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by the cattle industry under a recent food disparagement law, challenged statements Oprah made on her television talk show about the health of eating beef. According to the New York Times, "critics say that they [recent food disparagement laws] are a serious infringement on free-speech protections and are driven by business interests intent on silencing journalists and others who question the safety of the American food supply"(Verhovek). In a similar case in Britain, McDonalds sued activists from London Greenpeace who had created a leaflet urging consumers to boycott McDonalds for a host of reasons (ranging from health to working conditions to the effects of cattle raising practices on tropical rainforests). In this long-running "McLibel" case, the defendants were forced to prove each of the accusations they had made in their leaflet (Vidal).

Many groups within our society use the threat of intellectual property infringement litigation to avoid criticism or suppress works that they disapprove of. As many of the cases listed below show, limitations to the fair use defense against copyright infringement can result in the elimination of parody and satire, the curtailment of free speech, or the suppression of creativity, particularly in the form of new artistic styles:

The cases listed above all transpired under previous versions of copyright law. More recent legislation which would further limit or eliminate fair use carries with it the danger of limiting free speech, curtailing satire and parody, and suppressing new art forms to an even greater degree than existed when the above battles took place. The discourse over copyright legislation is dominated by discussion of "economic harm" that will come to the content industry if action is not taken. The harm to the public good that will come from further limitations on fair use is treated merely as a minor side-effect. As Negativland wrote in a 1993 issue of Billboard: The prevailing assumption ó that our culture, and all its cultural artifacts, should be privately controlled and locked away from any and all further creative uses by the audience they are directed at ó is both undesirable and unworkable. Uninvited appropriation is inevitable when a population bombarded with electronic media meets the hardware that encourages people to capture those media. However, laws devised to protect the "ownership" of transmittable information have, for example, resulted in a music industry in which the very idea of a collage is a dangerous one, and artists inspired by "direct reference" forms of creation do not have the "right" to decide what their own art will consist of. Has it occurred to anyone that the private ownership of mass culture is a bit of a contradiction in terms? (Negativland, p 154)

A rich public domain of materials whose copyright has expired creates a freely useable set of information that an individual can draw upon for any purpose whatsoever. Fair use and first sale add material currently under copyright to this public space, as long as they are used for social commentary or educational purposes. Together, the concepts of public domain, fair use and first sale form an Information Commons -- a diverse public space for free speech and creativity.

These three concepts are deeply intertwined with a value system that emphasizes access to information over privatization of information. These concepts promote democratic values such as political critique and satire, equal access to information for education, and the diversity of creativity that comes from letting less powerful societal voices develop new art forms that comment upon older ones.

In recent years we have seen a veritable assault on the public domain, fair use, and first sale ó from bullying threats of litigation, to court cases, to harsh legislation. The content industry is not only trying to reshape copyright from a public good into an unlimited economic right, but they are even trying to expand their rights into new arenas where these can be used to suppress criticism.

The content industry has complained vociferously about potential economic harm, yet their assertions run counter to a variety of examples which raise questions as to whether they will be harmed economically: The Netherlands has a much more liberal policy than fair use, allowing individuals unlimited reproduction of copyrighted material for their own private use; and the content industry still operates profitably within the Netherlands. As the effects from the Betamax court case show, technological changes initially perceived as economically threatening can lead to the discovery of new economic models involving income streams that exceed the ones previously "threatened". And as the software industry has shown, lowering prices not only provides a great deterrence to copyright infringement, but can open up new markets of potential customers.

But the most devastating impact from these recent changes is the likely transformation of information into a consumer product. There has always been a distinct set of differences between information and commodities. (For example, if I sell or give someone a toy, I no longer have it; but if I sell or give them information I still retain it.) The law has recognized this difference by treating intellectual property differently than tangible property. As the law is changing to eliminate the public good aspects of intellectual property, we are seeing a rapid increase in the commodification of information. The area of authorship and creativity will increasingly resemble the world of consumer products ó intellectual property will become more bland and corporate controlled. Most individuals will find it more and more difficult to become a creator, and will settle for being merely a consumer. And diverse voices will be more and more marginalized. As Negativland wrote in the Epilogue to their book, "We are suggesting that our modern surrender of the age-old concept of shared culture to the exclusive interests of private owners has relegated our population to spectator status and transformed our culture into an economic commodity." (Negativland, p 190) We need to stop the fencing off of our information commons and seize it back as a public space.


Some portions of this article appeared in Peace Review. Karen Gracy and Snowden Becker provided research assistance, and Sharon Falk provided helpful insights. Conversations with Sam Trosow and Pam Samuelson, as well as participation in the National Research Councilís panel on Intellectual Property helped the author better understand many of the legal concepts.


  • Besser, Howard. Recent Copyright Law Changes Threaten the Public Interest, Peace Review 11 (1) March 1999, pages 25-31.
  • Besser, Howard. From Internet to Information Superhighway in James Brook and Iain Boal (eds.), Resisting the Virtual Life: The Culture and Politics of Information, San Francisco: City Lights, 1995, pages 59-70.
  • Besser, Howard. A Class of Cultures on the Internet, San Francisco Chronicle, August 25, 1994.
  • Besser, Howard. Copyright Links. (Website) (
  • Bettig, Ronald V. Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996). (especially Chapter 6, "The Law of Intellectual Property: The Videocassette Recorder and the Control of Copyrights")
  • Case, Mary M. "Views of the Current Marketplace for Scholarly Journals", Association of Research Libraries Newsletter, #200, October 1998 (
  • "Disney Pressure Halts French AIDS Ad Campaign" (Hollywood Reporter) San Francisco Chronicle, October 7, 1998.
  • Espe, Erik. "Scientology Winning Court Battles: Some who post teachings on Internet forced to pay up", Business Journal, September 28, 1998 (
  • Felsenstein, Lee. The Commons of Information, Dr Dobbs Journal, May 1993, pages 18-24
  • Granick, Jennifer. "íScotty, Beam Down the Lawyers!í When free speech collides with trademark law", Wired 5:10 (October 1997) (
  • Grunier, Stephanie and John Lippman. Warner Bros. Claims Harry Potter sites, ZDNet (from Wall Street Journal Interactive), December 21, 2000 (
  • Guernsey, Lisa. "Research Librariesí Newsletter Examines Profits of Journal Publishers", Chronicle of Higher Education, October 30, 1998.
  • Home Recording Rights Coalition. Webpages republishing Sony Betamax litigation, especially and
  • Lardner, James. Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR (New York: W.W. Norton, 1987)
  • Levitt, Mallary D. "[letter to Frank Kahle] re Infringements of STAR TREK Copyrights and Trademarks", September 16, 1996 (
  • Luther R. Campbell AKA Luke Skyywalker et al. vs Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 92-1292, March 7, 1994
  • Makinson, Larry (ed.). The Big Picture: Where the Money Came From in the 1996 Elections, Washington DC: Center for Responsive Politics, 1998 (
  • Marlow, Eugene, and Eugene Secunda. Shifting Time and Space: The Story of Videotape (New York: Praeger, 1991). See Chapter 6, "The Home Video Market," especially pp. 121-128
  • Mattel Can't Prevent Man's Sexy Barbie Art, San Francisco Chronicle, February 23, 2001
  • McCabe, Mark J. "The Impact of Publisher Mergers on Journal Prices: A Preliminary Report", Association of Research Libraries Newsletter, #200, October 1998 (
  • Mirapaul, Matthew. EToys Lawsuit Is No Fun for Artist Group, New York Times, December 9, 1999 (
  • Mirapaul, Matthew. eToys Drops Lawsuit Against Artist Group, NY Times, January 25, 2000 (
  • "The Mother Jones 400", Mother Jones 23:6, November/December 1998, page 51 (
  • Negativland. Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2, Concord, CA: Seeland, 1995. (available via fax 510-420-0469)
  • New York Times. "Keeping Copyright in Balance" (editorial), New York Times, February 21, 1998
  • Risher, Carol. International Publishers Copyright Council (IPCC) Position Paper on Libraries, Copyright and the Electronic Environment, Barcelona: International Publishers Association Annual Meeting, April 1996 (
  • Safdie, Moshe and Wendy Kohn. The City After the Automobile: An Architect's Vision, New York: Basic Books, 1997
  • Salant, Jonathan D. "Disney Locks in Copyrights to Mickey, Goofy and Gang; Company pulled out stops lobbying Congress", (Associated Press) San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 1998, page 1
  • Samuelson, Pam. "The Copyright Grab", Wired 4.01, January 1996
  • Slevin, Peter, High Tech Video Snooping Comes to Super Bowl: Snapshots of fans taken to ID criminals, San Francisco Chronicle (Washington Post story), February 1, 2001, page A6
  • Tasini, Jonathan. "They Get Cake, We Eat Crumbs: The Real Story Behind Today's Unfair Economy", Washington DC: Preamble Center, 1998
  • Universal Vid Unit has first $1 Billion Year, Hollywood Reporter, December 7, 2000, page 43
  • Verhovek, Sam Howe. "Beef Against Oprah; Cattle industryís libel suit seeks $12 million for remark on air", (New York Times) San Francisco Chronicle, January 21, 1998
  • Vidal, John. McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial, New York: New York Press, 1997
  • Walker, Thaai and Kevin Fagan. Girl Scouts change their tunes: "Licensing order restricts use of favorite songs", San Francisco Chronicle, August 23, 1996, page 1
  • Walt Disney Productions vs The Air Pirates, US District Court for Northern California Case number C-71 2021, July 7, 1972; OíNeill et. al. vs Walt Disney Productions, Supreme Court Case number 78-5832, January 22, 1979
  • Ward, Lewis. "The Wrath of Viacom: Star Trek fans fight Viacom for their right to fair use", San Francisco Bay Guardian Online, February 1998, (
  • Wasko, Janet. Hollywood in the Information Age: Beyond the Silver Screen (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press): 1995
  • Weeks, Linton. Pat Schroeder's New Chapter: The former Congresswoman is battling for America's Publishers, Washington Post, February 7, 2001, page C01 (
  • Wyly, Brendan J. "Competition in Scholarly Publishing? What Publisher Profits Reveal", Association of Research Libraries Newsletter, #200, October 1998 (


    Last modified: 3/26/2001