COPYRIGHTSAND COPYWRONGS

SIVA VA I D H YA N AT H A N

COPYRIGHTSAND COPYWRONGS

The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It

Threatens Creativity

II
N e w York University Press • NewYork and London
N E W YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS
New York and London

© 2001 by New York University

All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Vaidhyanathan, Siva.
Copyrights and copywrongs : the rise of intellectual property and
how it threatens creativity / Siva Vaidhyanathan.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8147-8806-8 (alk. paper)
1. Copyright—Social aspects—United States. 2. Copyright—United
States—History. 3. United States—Cultural policy. I. Title.
Z642 .V35 2001
346.7304'82—dc21 2001002178

New York University Press books are printed on acid-free paper,

and their binding materials are chosen for strength and durability.

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction 1

1 C o p y r i g h t a n d A m e r i c a n Culture: Ideas, Expressions,

and D e m o c r a c y 17

2 M a r k Twain a n d the H i s t o r y of Literary C o p y r i g h t 35

3 Celluloid C o p y r i g h t a n d D e r i v a t i v e Works, or, H o w to

Stop 12 Monkeys with One Chair 81
4 H e p Cats a n d C o p y Cats: A m e r i c a n M u s i c C h a l l e n g e s
the C o p y r i g h t Tradition 117

5 T h e Digital M o m e n t : T h e E n d of C o p y r i g h t ? 149

Epilogue: T h e S u m m e r w i t h o u t M a r t h a G r a h a m 185

Notes 191
Index 231
About the Author 243

v
Acknowledgments

M y greatest debt is to S h e l l e y Fisher Fishkin. S h e h a s b e e n a n ideal m e n -

tor t h r o u g h o u t m y brief career a n d will c o n t i n u e to inspire m y explo-
rations for years to c o m e . A s Professor Fishkin exemplifies, there is n o
w a r m e r social a n d intellectual s u p p o r t s y s t e m than the circle of M a r k
Twain scholars a r o u n d the w o r l d . Victor D o y n o a n d R o b e r t Hirst en-
thusiastically e n c o u r a g e d m e to p u r s u e Twain's interest in copyright,
a n d each o p e n e d u p m a n y i n v a l u a b l e opportunities. L o u i s J . B u d d and
D a v i d E. E. Sloane w e r e early a n d constant s u p p o r t e r s of m y interests
in A m e r i c a n h u m o r . J o e A l v a r e z , G r e g g C a m f i e l d , A n d r e w H o f f m a n ,
M i c h a e l Kiskis, M c A v o y L a y n e , B r u c e M i c h e l s o n , R. K e n t R a s m u s s e n ,
Taylor R o b e r t s , L a u r a Skandera-Trombley, D a v i d L. S m i t h , Jeffrey
Steinbrink, Tom Tenney, H a r r y W o n h a m , J u d i t h Yarros-Lee, a n d J i m
Z w i c k g e n e r o u s l y g a v e m e their a d v i c e , support, a n d friendship.
I o w e special t h a n k s to Jervis L a n g d o n Jr. for m a k i n g the Elmira
College C e n t e r for M a r k T w a i n Studies a n d Q u a r r y F a r m a hospitable
a n d v a l u a b l e site for scholars. I a m h o n o r e d that the center a l l o w e d m e
to s e r v e as a scholar-in-residence during the s u m m e r of 1997. K a r e n
Ernhout, M i c h a e l Kiskis, G r e t c h e n Sharlow, a n d M a r k W o o d h o u s e
m a d e m y s t a y in lovely E l m i r a fruitful a n d fun. It's n o w o n d e r M a r k
Twain did his best w o r k t h e r e — a l t h o u g h I s u s p e c t h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n
less p r o d u c t i v e h a d h e h a d cable television.
I a m d e e p l y i n d e b t e d to b o t h R o b e r t Hirst a n d Victor D o y n o for
their help a n d a d v i c e in reading, transcribing, e x a m i n i n g , a n d dis-
cussing " T h e G r e a t R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d . " I m u s t t h a n k Margalit
F o x of the New York Times for h e l p i n g bring M a r k T w a i n ' s " T h e Great
R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d " to the attention of the w o r l d , a n d h e l p i n g to
p u t copyright discussions o n the national a g e n d a .
I h a v e h a d the pleasure of discussing c o p y r i g h t issues w i t h s o m e
outstanding legal scholars in the process of c o m p o s i n g this project:
Yochai Benkler, J u n e Besek, M i c h a e l Birnhack, A n d r e w C h i n , Julie
C o h e n , William F o r b a t h , J a n e G i n s b u r g , M i k e G o d w i n , Peter Jaszi,

vii
 viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D a v i d L a n g e , M a r k Lemley, L a w r e n c e Lessig, N e i l N e t a n e l , B e t h Si-

m o n e N o v e c k , a n d J o n a t h a n Zittrain. T h e w o r k of J a m e s B o y l e , R o s e -
m a r y C o o m b e , M a r g a r e t R a d i n , a n d P a m e l a S a m u e l s o n h a s inspired
m e to v o i c e the case for the public interest in c o p y r i g h t policy.
For f e e d b a c k a n d intellectual inspiration, I o w e C h u c k D., J o h n
Perry Barlow, a n d R i c h a r d S t a l l m a n a great deal. Discussions w i t h Jello
Biafra a n d J o h n F l a n s b u r g h a b o u t copyright a n d the m u s i c industry
h a v e influenced this b o o k as w e l l .
T h e faculty a n d staff at the B e r k m a n C e n t e r for Internet a n d Society
at H a r v a r d L a w School i n c l u d e d m e in its p r o g r a m s a n d k e p t m e in-
f o r m e d of evolving issues. T h e O p e n L a w e x p e r i m e n t , in particular,
w a s a great help.
A u t h o r s d o n ' t t h a n k librarians a n d teachers e n o u g h . This project
c o u l d not h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n w i t h o u t the help of librarians at Wesleyan
University, the State U n i v e r s i t y of N e w York at Buffalo, E l m i r a College,
the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , the U n i v e r s i t y of California at Berkeley, C o r -
nell University, the Buffalo a n d Erie C o u n t y Public Library, Yale U n i -
versity, the U n i v e r s i t y of Illinois at U r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n , the University
of Texas at Austin, a n d N e w York University. Librarians in the Williams-
ville Central S c h o o l District, especially J o y c e Z o b e l , taught m e h o w to
read. Williamsville teachers s u c h as M i l d r e d Blaisdell, R e g i n a Derrico,
a n d S u e H o l t taught m e h o w to write.
I particularly n e e d to t h a n k N e w York U n i v e r s i t y librarian N a n c y
K r a n i c h a n d the staff of the A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association. B e i n g the
custodians of o u r i n f o r m a t i o n a n d cultural c o m m o n s , librarians took an
early interest in m y w o r k . I l o o k f o r w a r d to m a n y years of w o r k i n g with
t h e m . A l s o , the staff a n d officers of the Electronic Frontier F o u n d a t i o n
h a v e b e e n helpful in a l l o w i n g m e to participate in public discussions
a b o u t copyright issues a n d the electronic i n f o r m a t i o n e n v i r o n m e n t .
I h a v e presented p o r t i o n s of this w o r k before sessions of the A m e r -
ican Literature Association, the A m e r i c a n Studies Association, the
M o d e r n L a n g u a g e Association, the N e w York State C o m m u n i c a t i o n
Association, a n d the A m e r i c a n Studies Association of Texas. At m y side
t h r o u g h m a n y of t h o s e sessions w e r e M e l i s s a H o m e s t e a d a n d D a v i d
Sanjek. T h e i r input w a s i n v a l u a b l e to the intellectual j o u r n e y this s u b -
ject h a s taken m e on. I also presented portions of this project before fac-
ulty a n d students at the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, W e s l e y a n University, N e w
York University, H a r v a r d University, the N e w S c h o o l University, a n d
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

B r o w n University. T h e f e e d b a c k I received at these institutions w a s

invaluable.
At the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, I o w e particular thanks to the following
p e o p l e , s o m e of w h o m h a v e m o v e d o n to o t h e r institutions: R o b e r t
Berdahl, Walter D e a n B u r n h a m , S h e l d o n E k l a n d - O l s o n , Peter Flawn,
Neil Foley, R o n G i b s o n , L e w i s G o u l d , R o b e r t H a r d g r a v e , R o b e r t King,
Richard Lariviere, Gail M i n a u l t , D a v i d M o n t e j a n o , A d a m N e w t o n , Pat-
rick Olivelle, a n d K a m a l a V i s w e s w a r a n .
T h e A m e r i c a n Studies D e p a r t m e n t at the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas sup-
p o r t e d m e in e v e r y w a y possible. M y t i m e in the g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m ex-
t e n d e d across t e r m s of t w o excellent chairs, R o b e r t A b z u g a n d Jeff
Meikle. T h e y b o t h h a n d l e d d e p a r t m e n t a l b u s i n e s s w i t h w a r m t h , h u -
mor, skill, a n d patience. Bill Stott first s u g g e s t e d I p u r s u e a n a c a d e m i c
career, a n d I will a l w a y s b e grateful for his early a n d constant friend-
ship a n d support. T h a n k s also to J a n i c e Bradley, Patricia B u r n h a m , Al
Crosby, J a n e t D a v i s , D e s l e y D e a c o n , C y n t h i a Frese, Lydia Griffith, M e l -
anie Livingston, a n d M a r k S m i t h for their w o n d e r f u l a d v i c e a n d sup-
port. M y p e e r s t h r o u g h g r a d u a t e school t a u g h t m e as m u c h as a n y o n e
did. M y dissertation c o m m i t t e e read a n early v e r s i o n of this w o r k and
gave trenchant a d v i c e that h e l p e d m a k e it a real b o o k . T h e c o m m i t t e e
i n c l u d e d K e v i n G a i n e s , William F o r b a t h , Neil N e t a n e l , Jeff M e i k l e ,
R o b e r t M . C r u n d e n , a n d Shelley Fisher Fishkin. A special a c k n o w l e d g -
m e n t goes to the m e m o r y of Professor C r u n d e n , w h o p a s s e d a w a y soon
after the dissertation d e f e n s e . D u r i n g m y t i m e in the g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m ,
he c h a l l e n g e d m e at e v e r y turn. H e n e v e r let m e get a w a y w i t h merely
passable work.
I w r o t e m u c h of this b o o k d u r i n g a w o n d e r f u l year at Wesleyan
University. T h e following p e o p l e w e r e responsible for m a k i n g that
year h i g h l y p r o d u c t i v e : J o n a t h a n Cutler, Jeff Kerr-Ritchie, D o n n a M a r -
tin, J i m M c G u i r e , Eliza Petrow, Claire Potter, R e n e e R o m a n o , A s h r a f
Rushdy, Kate R u s h i n , Peter R u t l a n d , a n d Jennifer Tucker. D o n n a M a r -
tin retired as m y year at W e s l e y a n e n d e d . S h e will go d o w n in history
as o n e of t h o s e rare a n d l e g e n d a r y administrators w h o can slash
through the thickest b u r e a u c r a c y w i t h a single p h o n e call.
At N e w York U n i v e r s i t y this b o o k h a s benefited f r o m e n c o u r a g e -
m e n t a n d f e e d b a c k f r o m Trish A n d e r s o n , A m y Bentley, D e b o r a h Boris-
off, L a n e B r o w n i n g , J o n a t h a n Burston, R o b i n M e a n s C o l e m a n , Todd
Gitlin, D a n H a h n , J o h n L a n g , Ted M a g d e r , Elizabeth M c H e n r y M a r k
 X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Crispin Miller, Christine N y s t r o m , N e i l P o s t m a n , A r v i n d Rajagopal, J a y

Rosen, Mitchell S t e p h e n s , A u r o r a Wallace, Ellen Willis, a n d M a r i o n
Wrenn. Neil P o s t m a n w a s a particularly i m p o r t a n t figure in the c o m -
position of this b o o k . H i s l e a d e r s h i p of the D e p a r t m e n t of C u l t u r e a n d
C o m m u n i c a t i o n e n s u r e d I h a d the time a n d resources to research a n d
write this b o o k . But m o r e t h a n that, Neil's friendship h a s b e e n a great
b o o n to m y life in the Big City. Neil is a c o m b i n a t i o n of O b i - W a n K e n o b i
a n d C a s e y Stengal. His wit, c h a r m , a n d brilliance h a v e m a d e m y time
at N Y U a pleasure.
I h a v e tried to follow the e x a m p l e s of other scholarly a n d experi-
m e n t a l w o r k s i n t e n d e d to enrich d e m o c r a c y : J a m e s Fishkin's delibera-
tive polls; J a m e s C a r e y ' s essays that explain h o w c o m m u n i c a t i o n cre-
ates culture; a n d J a y R o s e n ' s efforts to instill a sense of public duty
a m o n g journalists. In the spirit of J o h n D e w e y , Fishkin, Carey, Rosen,
a n d others h a v e a r g u e d for a n d described w a y s to m a k e the A m e r i c a n
p u b l i c s p h e r e richer a n d m o r e m e a n i n g f u l . I h o p e this b o o k c a n con-
tribute to that effort.
M y students at C o n c o r d i a U n i v e r s i t y at A u s t i n , the U n i v e r s i t y of
Texas, W e s l e y a n University, a n d N e w York U n i v e r s i t y h a v e taught m e
m o r e than I c o u l d e v e r h a v e taught t h e m .
M y f o r m e r life as a journalist g a v e m e m a n y friends a n d role m o d -
els, especially M o l l y Ivins. K a t r i n a v a n d e n H e u v e l a n d A r t W i n s l o w at
the Nation a l l o w e d m e to p r e s e n t m y v i e w s of the N a p s t e r controversy
in a t i m e l y m a n n e r . R i c k K a r r at N a t i o n a l Public R a d i o h a s b e e n a v a l u -
able s o u n d i n g b o a r d for m y t h o u g h t s o n t e c h n o l o g y a n d m u s i c . R o b
Walker at Slate k e p t m e h o n e s t .
M a n y friends offered e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t t h r o u g h the e x e -
cution of this b o o k . T h e y i n c l u d e K a r e n A d a m s , L e a h A r c h i b a l d , J o s h
Brewster, D i a n e B u r c h B e c k h a m , J o e Belk, C a t h e r i n e Collins, J o h n
C o u n c i l , J o h n Fitzpatrick, Catherine H a d d a d , D a v i d M c B r i d e , M a r k
M c C u l l o c h , J o e M e n d e l s o n , S u e Murray, D a v i d Nather, D a n O'Neill,
Karl a n d Lisa Pallmeyer, B o b R a n d a l l , C a t h e r i n e S i m m o n s , Greg
Speller, P a u l a Stout, K a r i n e Walther, a n d M i c h e l l e Valek. A m o n g these
friends, S u e K r e n e k deserves special notice for s u g g e s t i n g I write a b o u t
the intersections of copyright a n d culture in the first p l a c e . B l a m e her
for fueling m y hubris.
In the A m e r i c a n Studies c o m m u n i t y , G e n a C a p o n i - T a b e r y J o e l Din-
erstein, K i m Hewitt, Charlie Keil, Brett Gary, J o h n G e n n a r i , D a v i d
Roediger, a n d Carlo Rotella e n c o u r a g e d m e at e v e r y turn.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

At N e w York U n i v e r s i t y Press, N i k o P f u n d s o u g h t out this b o o k

with his characteristic e n e r g y a n d passion. After N i k o left N Y U Press
for a h i g h e r station, Eric Z i n n e r took this b o o k t h r o u g h editing a n d pro-
duction w i t h o u t m i s s i n g a step. C o m p o s i n g a first b o o k is a frightening
process. I a m g l a d I h a d their g u i d a n c e a n d c o n f i d e n c e at e v e r y step.
The phrase " a gentleman and a scholar" must have been invented
to describe m y patient a n d g e n e r o u s father, V i s h n a m p e t S i v a r a m a k r i s h -
n a n V a i d h y a n a t h a n . I h a v e s u r r o u n d e d m y s e l f w i t h the brilliant and
talented, yet h e still counts as the s m a r t e s t p e r s o n I h a v e ever k n o w n .
M y mother, Virginia V a i d h y a n a t h a n , s h o w e d m e the w o r l d a n d taught
m e n o t to fear it. T h e love of m y sisters, M e h a l a a n d Vedana, k e p t m e
w o r k i n g during the h a r d e s t m o m e n t s . A l t h o u g h m y dear g r a n d p a r e n t s ,
V e d a m b a l a n d V. M . S i v a r a m a k r i s h n a n , c o u l d n o t stay a r o u n d long
e n o u g h to read this b o o k , I k n o w t h e y can feel it. T h e y also can sense
m y love a n d appreciation for their children, grandchildren, a n d great-
grandchildren. A n d to m y dear r e m a i n i n g g r a n d p a r e n t , H e l e n E v a n s :
thanks for m a k i n g e v e r y t h i n g possible, e v e n w h e n things s e e m e d im-
possible. Your love m e a n s m o r e t h a n y o u c o u l d ever know.
Introduction

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the
people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in
order many proverbs.
The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which
was written was upright, even words of truth.
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the
masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
And further, by these, my son be admonished: of making many
books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
—Ecclesiastes, 12:8-12

IN I 9 4 6 . G R O U C H O M a r x received a letter f r o m the legal d e p a r t m e n t

of Warner Brothers studios. T h e letter w a r n e d M a r x that his n e x t film
project, A Night in Casablanca, m i g h t encroach on the W a r n e r s ' rights to
their 1942 film Casablanca. T h e letter p r o m p t e d a reply from M a r x that
ridiculed m a n y of the o p e r a t i o n a l principles of rights protection in the
film industry. First, M a r x e x p r e s s e d surprise that the W a r n e r Brothers
could o w n s o m e t h i n g called " C a s a b l a n c a " w h e n the n a m e h a d for cen-
turies b e e n firmly a t t a c h e d to the M o r o c c a n city. M a r x declared that he
h a d recently discovered that in 1471 F e r d i n a n d B a l b o a Warner, the
great-grandfather of the Warners, h a d s t u m b l e d u p o n the N o r t h Afri-
can city w h i l e searching for a shortcut to B u r b a n k . T h e n M a r x p o n d e r e d
h o w the filmgoing a u d i e n c e c o u l d p o s s i b l y c o n f u s e the M a r x Brothers
project w i t h the w i d e l y successful W a r n e r Brothers p r o d u c t i o n . A m e r i -
can filmgoers, M a r x a r g u e d , c o u l d p r o b a b l y distinguish b e t w e e n Casa-
blanca star Ingrid B e r g m a n a n d his b l o n d brother H a r p o M a r x . " I don't
k n o w w h e t h e r I c o u l d [tell the d i f f e r e n c e ] , " M a r x a d d e d , " b u t I cer-
tainly w o u l d like to t r y . " 1

i
 2 INTRODUCTION

T h e n M a r x t u r n e d the issue of n a m e o w n e r s h i p o n the W a r n e r s . H e

c o n c e d e d that t h e y c o u l d claim control of " W a r n e r , " b u t certainly n o t
" b r o t h e r s . " M a r x c l a i m e d , "Professionally, w e w e r e brothers long b e -
fore y o u w e r e . " M a r x pointed out that e v e n before the M a r x Brothers,
there w e r e the S m i t h Brothers, the Brothers K a r a m a z o v , Detroit Tigers
outfielder D a n Brothers, a n d " B r o t h e r , C a n You Spare a D i m e ? " w h i c h
M a r x asserted w a s originally plural, " b u t this w a s s p r e a d i n g a d i m e
pretty thin, so t h e y t h r e w out o n e b r o t h e r . " M a r x a s k e d J a c k W a r n e r if
h e w a s the first " J a c k , " citing J a c k the R i p p e r as a possible precursor.
M a r x told H a r r y W a r n e r that h e h a d k n o w n several H a r r y s in his life,
so H a r r y W a r n e r m i g h t h a v e to relinquish his title as w e l l . M a r x con-
cluded his letter w i t h a call for solidarity a m o n g " b r o t h e r s " in the face
of attacks from a m b i t i o u s y o u n g l a w y e r s w h o m i g h t s e e k to curb their
creative activities. " W e are all brothers u n d e r the skin a n d w e ' l l r e m a i n
friends till the last reel of ' A N i g h t in C a s a b l a n c a ' goes t u m b l i n g over
the s p o o l . " 2

T h e Warner Brothers legal d e p a r t m e n t w r o t e b a c k to M a r x several

times, asking for a s u m m a r y of the plot of A Night in Casablanca so the
l a w y e r s c o u l d search for a n y similarities that m i g h t b e actionable. M a r x
replied w i t h a ridiculous plot s u m m a r y a b o u t brother C h i c o M a r x liv-
ing in a s m a l l G r e c i a n urn o n the outskirts of the city. T h e legal depart-
m e n t a g a i n w r o t e for m o r e detail. M a r x a n s w e r e d b y saying h e h a d s u b -
stantially c h a n g e d the plot of the film. T h e n e w story i n v o l v e d G r o u c h o
M a r x playing a character n a m e d Bordello, the s w e e t h e a r t of H u m p h r e y
Bogart, a n d C h i c o r u n n i n g an ostrich farm. M a r x received n o m o r e let-
ters of i n q u i r y f r o m the Warner Brothers legal d e p a r t m e n t . 3

In his responses to the W a r n e r Brothers legal d e p a r t m e n t , M a r x

m a d e several points a b o u t m i d - c e n t u r y trends in "intellectual p r o p -
erty." T h e s e trends h a v e g r o w n m o r e acute in the last d e c a d e a n d
presently threaten creativity a n d access to information. A m e r i c a n c o p y -
right l a w at the b e g i n n i n g of the c e n t u r y tilted in favor of c o n s u m e r s at
the e x p e n s e of p r o d u c e r s . In a n a t t e m p t to redress that a n t i p r o d u c e r im-
b a l a n c e , courts, the U.S. C o n g r e s s , a n d international organizations h a v e
s u c c e e d e d in tilting the b o d y of l a w d a n g e r o u s l y the o t h e r way. G r o u -
cho M a r x is g o n e , b u t Time Warner, Inc., is m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n ever.
Since the release of A Night in Casablanca, information, entertain-
m e n t , a n d c o m p u t e r software h a v e e m e r g e d as a m o n g the U n i t e d
S t a t e s ' m o s t v a l u a b l e resources a n d m o s t profitable exports. Yet the
legal s y s t e m that s u p p o r t s a n d g u i d e s those resources, "intellectual
 INTRODUCTION 3

p r o p e r t y l a w , " r e m a i n s the m u r k i e s t a n d least u n d e r s t o o d aspect of

A m e r i c a n life a n d c o m m e r c e . T h e rules s e e m to c h a n g e e v e r y f e w years,
yet r e m a i n a step b e h i n d the latest cultural or technological a d v a n c e s .
I g n o r a n c e of the l a w s a n d fear of s t e p p i n g over g r a y lines intimidate
m a n y artists, m u s i c i a n s , a u t h o r s , a n d p u b l i s h e r s . M e a n w h i l e , c o p y r i g h t
libertarians flaunt the difficulty of e n f o r c e m e n t o v e r the n a t i o n ' s c o m -
puter n e t w o r k s , a n d rap m u s i c i a n s lift s a m p l e s of other p e o p l e ' s m u s i c
to w e a v e n e w m o n t a g e s of s o u n d that h a v e f o u n d a vibrant m a r k e t . In
recent years, the following p h e n o m e n a h a v e c o m p l i c a t e d the discus-
sion o v e r w h a t sorts of " b o r r o w i n g " a n d " c o p y i n g " are a l l o w e d or for-
b i d d e n u n d e r intellectual p r o p e r t y standards:

• R a p stars 2 L i v e C r e w p a r o d i e d R o y O r b i s o n ' s s o n g " O h , Pretty

W o m a n . " O r b i s o n ' s licensing company, A c u f f - R o s e , s u e d the rap
group, alleging that the n e w recording w a s n o t a true p a r o d y
and thus w a s n o t protected b y the " f a i r u s e " p r o v i s i o n of the
copyright law.
• In a n airport, artist Jeff K o o n s spotted a picture postcard of a sub-
u r b a n c o u p l e h u g g i n g a litter of p u p p i e s . H e instructed his un-
derstudies to build a sculpture of the couple a n d paint t h e m
ridiculous colors. K o o n s sold the sculpture to a m u s e u m , but the
p h o t o g r a p h e r s u e d h i m for copyright i n f r i n g e m e n t a n d w o n .
T h e p h o t o g r a p h e r n o w h a s p o s s e s s i o n of the sculpture as part of
the settlement.
• T h e U.S. g o v e r n m e n t has p r e s s u r e d the C h i n e s e g o v e r n m e n t to
crack d o w n o n publishers a n d v e n d o r s w h o issue u n a u t h o r i z e d
versions of A m e r i c a n m u s i c , literature, a n d c o m p u t e r software.
• M o t i o n picture c o m p a n i e s in the 1970s u r g e d the U . S . C o n g r e s s
to restrict the sale of v i d e o cassette recorders in the U n i t e d States,
fearing that duplication of films w o u l d limit first-run m o v i e
profits. After losing the antivideo battle in C o n g r e s s a n d in the
courts, the i n d u s t r y e m b r a c e d the t e c h n o l o g y a n d o p e n e d u p a
w h o l e n e w sector for redistributing its p r o d u c t s . T h e n , in 2000,
the i n d u s t r y a g a i n l o w e r e d h e a v y legislative a n d legal h a m m e r s
to stifle a t e c h n o l o g y that a l l o w s u n a u t h o r i z e d private, n o n c o m -
mercial access to a n d c o p y i n g of digital v i d e o discs.
• R e c o r d c o m p a n i e s in the 1980s stalled the introduction of digital
audio taping e q u i p m e n t into the c o n s u m e r m a r k e t , fearing high-
quality h o m e m u s i c a l c o p y i n g w o u l d limit c o m p a c t disc sales.
 4 INTRODUCTION

T h e n , in the s p r i n g of 2000, the recording i n d u s t r y initiated a

s l e w of legal actions to restrict the proliferation of file-sharing
services s u c h as Napster, t h r o u g h w h i c h fans c a n share c o m -
p r e s s e d m u s i c files.
• Apple Computer Corporation unsuccessfully sued Microsoft
C o r p o r a t i o n for c o p y r i g h t infringement. A p p l e a c c u s e d the soft-
w a r e giant of illegally b a s i n g its W i n d o w s format on A p p l e ' s
M a c i n t o s h graphical user interface design.

All of these issues go deeper t h a n the tangle of statutes a n d court deci-

sions that w e a v e the m e s h of c o p y r i g h t law. T h e y e x p o s e a n d d e p e n d
on A m e r i c a n ethical a s s u m p t i o n s a n d cultural habits, i n c l u d i n g the n o -
tions of r e w a r d i n g h a r d w o r k , recognizing g e n i u s a n d creativity, e n s u r -
ing w i d e a n d easy access to i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d e n c o u r a g i n g e x p e r i m e n -
tation in b o t h art a n d c o m m e r c e . M o r e deeply, these issues raise ques-
tions a b o u t w h e t h e r A m e r i c a n culture, w i t h its African A m e r i c a n a n d
A m e r i c a n oral traditions a n d anti-authoritarian predispositions, can
b r o a d l y d e p l o y a legal f r a m e w o r k d r a w n u p b y British n o b l e m e n three
centuries a g o . A s A m e r i c a n expressive culture b e c o m e s m o r e techno-
logically d e m o c r a t i c , m o r e overtly African A m e r i c a n , m o r e global a n d
c o m m e r c i a l , the archaic legal system it inherited has b e e n r e m a r k a b l y
able to a c c o m m o d a t e all these c h a n g e s , h o w e v e r imperfectly. T h e story
of copyright l a w in the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y h a s b e e n the process of ex-
p a n d i n g , l e n g t h e n i n g , a n d strengthening the ill-fitting l a w to a c c o m -
m o d a t e these c h a n g e s . G r a d u a l l y the l a w h a s lost sight of its original
charge: to e n c o u r a g e creativity, science, a n d democracy. Instead, the
l a w n o w protects the p r o d u c e r s a n d taxes c o n s u m e r s . It r e w a r d s w o r k s
already created a n d limits w o r k s yet to b e created. T h e l a w h a s lost its
mission, a n d the A m e r i c a n p e o p l e h a v e lost control of it. 4

W H O IS C O P Y R I G H T F O R ?

A s a result of these a n d other cases, digital reproduction, international

c o m m e r c e , a n d digital m u s i c s a m p l i n g h a v e e x p o s e d g a p s in the l a w ' s
ability to deal w i t h n e w f o r m s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d n e w technologies.
P o w e r f u l interests h a v e a r g u e d for stronger restrictions that intimidate
artists, m u s i c i a n s , a n d c o m p u t e r h o b b y i s t s into respecting " p r o p e r t y
r i g h t s " at the e x p e n s e of creative liberty. O t h e r s h a v e a b a n d o n e d all
 INTRODUCTION 5

h o p e of legally constraining piracy a n d s a m p l i n g , a n d h a v e instead a d -

v o c a t e d a s y s t e m of electronic locks a n d gates that w o u l d restrict access
to o n l y those w h o agree to f o l l o w certain strict guidelines.
This b o o k argues against b o t h those positions. T h r o u g h a series of
case studies in different m e d i a t h r o u g h the t w e n t i e t h century, it argues
for " t h i n " c o p y r i g h t protection: just strong e n o u g h to e n c o u r a g e a n d re-
w a r d aspiring artists, writers, m u s i c i a n s , a n d entrepreneurs, yet p o r o u s
e n o u g h to allow full a n d rich d e m o c r a t i c s p e e c h a n d the free flow of in-
formation. T h e b o o k o p e n s w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n of M a r k T w a i n ' s role in
defining the t e r m s of debate for literary c o p y r i g h t in the first d e c a d e of
the century. It will t h e n s h o w h o w s o m e k e y S u p r e m e C o u r t decisions
b r o u g h t the n e w m e d i a of film a n d r e c o r d e d m u s i c u n d e r the c o p y r i g h t
u m b r e l l a , p o k i n g a h o l e in the w a l l that separated the protection of spe-
cific e x p r e s s i o n a n d the f r e e d o m to use o t h e r s ' ideas. T h e e x p e r i e n c e s of
jazz a n d b l u e s c o m p o s e r s flesh out the c o m p l e x i t i e s of h o w the l a w han-
dles " w o r k s m a d e for h i r e " a n d the ethnic politics at w o r k in issues of
o w n e r s h i p a n d control of A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c . T h e b o o k will then
u s e rap m u s i c to explore h o w p o s t m o d e r n sensibilities a n d n e w tech-
nologies h a v e e x p o s e d d e e p flaws in the law. Finally, it will e x a m i n e
s o m e disturbing trends in international "intellectual p r o p e r t y " l a w that
m a y f u n d a m e n t a l l y c h a n g e h o w A m e r i c a n literature, m u s i c , film, soft-
w a r e , a n d i n f o r m a t i o n will b e p r o d u c e d , b o u g h t , sold, a n d u s e d in the
twenty-first century.
T h e chief goal of this w o r k is to explain h o w essential the original
f o u n d a t i o n s of A m e r i c a n copyright l a w are to o u r e d u c a t i o n a l , political,
artistic, a n d literary culture. L a t e l y as a result of schools of legal
t h o u g h t that a i m to protect " p r o p e r t y " at all costs a n d see n o t h i n g g o o d
about " p u b l i c g o o d s , " copyright h a s d e v e l o p e d as a w a y to r e w a r d the
h a v e s : the successful c o m p o s e r , the w i d e l y read author, the multina-
tional film c o m p a n y . C o p y r i g h t s h o u l d not b e m e a n t for R u p e r t M u r -
doch, M i c h a e l Eisner, a n d Bill G a t e s at the e x p e n s e of the rest of us.
C o p y r i g h t s h o u l d b e for s t u d e n t s , teachers, readers, library p a t r o n s , re-
searchers, freelance writers, e m e r g i n g m u s i c i a n s , a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l
artists. B e c a u s e the b o d y of l a w has g r o w n so o p a q u e a n d unpredictable
in recent years, c o p y r i g h t policy discussion h a s resided in the d o m a i n
of experts w h o h a v e the time a n d m o n e y to d e v o t e to u n d e r s t a n d i n g
a n d m a n i p u l a t i n g the law. C o p y r i g h t m y t h s h a v e h a d as m u c h p o w e r
as c o p y r i g h t l a w s . T h e interests of the g e n e r a l p u b l i c h a v e b e e n ignored
b y the m o v e m e n t s to e x p a n d c o p y r i g h t in the 1990s. O r g a n i z a t i o n s of
 6 INTRODUCTION

librarians a n d scientists h a v e t a k e n s t a n d s against o d i o u s p o l i c y p r o -

posals, b u t they are m a t c h e d against l a w y e r s for Microsoft a n d Disney.
It is n o t a fair fight. M y prescription for this p r o b l e m is to b r i n g the dis-
cussion of copyright issues into the public s p h e r e , w h e r e it o n c e w a s . 5

A s literary historian M i c h a e l W a r n e r explains in his b o o k The Let-

ters of the Republic, the idea of a p u b l i c s p h e r e w a s central to early A m e r -
ican r e p u b l i c a n ideology, the s a m e i d e o l o g y that p r o d u c e d a n d justified
A m e r i c a n copyright law. T h e e m e r g e n c e of an i n d e p e n d e n t press cul-
ture e n a b l e d the d e v e l o p m e n t of a p u b l i c s p h e r e a n d a l l o w e d those
w h o w e r e s a n c t i o n e d to participate in it (literate w h i t e males) to s i m u l -
taneously criticize the state a n d c o m m e r c i a l culture. N o t c o i n c i d e n t a l l y
Warner argues, late-eighteenth-century A m e r i c a n print culture w a s the
site of shifting a n d e m e r g i n g definitions of t e r m s s u c h as " i n d i v i d u a l , "
" p r i n t , " " p u b l i c , " a n d " r e a s o n . " All of these t e r m s lend t h e m s e l v e s to
the f o u n d a t i o n s of A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t law. So this project b u i l d s u p o n
W a r n e r ' s : the e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y p u b l i c s p h e r e w a s essential to the es-
t a b l i s h m e n t of c o p y r i g h t law, a n d c o p y r i g h t ' s s u b s e q u e n t t r a n s f o r m a -
tions coincide w i t h the general structural t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the public
sphere. A cycle h a s d e v e l o p e d . T h e corruptions of copyright h a v e en-
forced, a n d b e e n enforced by, the erosions of the public s p h e r e . 6

Five d e c a d e s before J u r g e n H a b e r m a s described the structural

transformation of the p u b l i c s p h e r e in the t w e n t i e t h century, Walter
L i p p m a n n a n d J o h n D e w e y s e n s e d these c h a n g e s as w e l l . T h e y each
prescribed different a n d o p p o s i n g treatments for w h a t a i l e d — a n d still
a i l s — A m e r i c a n society. In Public Opinion (1922), L i p p m a n n described
the failure of the liberal republican m o d e l of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . H e ar-
g u e d that the w o r l d in the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y h a d g r o w n so c o m p l e x a n d
diffuse, a n d q u e s t i o n s of p u b l i c c o n c e r n required so m u c h specialized
k n o w l e d g e , that the general p u b l i c w a s u n a b l e to deal w i t h issues in-
telligently or efficiently. M a s s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b y the 1920s h a d ceased
operating as the site of d e p e n d a b l e or substantial i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the
w o r l d . Instead, L i p p m a n n asserted, all that m o s t readers c o u l d discern
from the m a s s m e d i a w a s a series of confusing " s t e r e o t y p e s , " f u z z y a n d
distorted " p i c t u r e s in o u r h e a d s . " L i p p m a n n b e l i e v e d that " t r u e , " d e -
p e n d a b l e , a n d useful i n f o r m a t i o n w a s fixable a n d u s a b l e , b u t o n l y if a
class of experts c o u l d filter, edit, a n d certify the i n f o r m a t i o n first. This
priestly class of e d u c a t e d experts, L i p p m a n n a r g u e d , s h o u l d h a v e a
central role in all discussions a n d decisions of p u b l i c policy. It s h o u l d
g u i d e , if n o t d e t e r m i n e , p u b l i c opinion. In o t h e r w o r d s , L i p p m a n n
 INTRODUCTION 7

sensed that the r e p u b l i c a n p u b l i c sphere h a d e r o d e d . H e a r g u e d that an

elite state council c o u l d replace it. L i p p m a n n w a n t e d to shift the duties
of the public s p h e r e to the state itself 7
J o h n D e w e y r e v i e w e d L i p p m a n n ' s Public Opinion in the New Re-
public in 1922. Five years later, D e w e y a s s e m b l e d a b r o a d i n d i c t m e n t of
L i p p m a n n ' s ideas i n the b o o k The Public and Its Problems (1927). Recog-
nizing that s u c h a council of B r a h m i n experts w o u l d threaten real
democracy, D e w e y instead called for a reinvigoration of local p u b l i c
spheres. T h e p u b l i c s h o u l d b e better e d u c a t e d to b e able to distinguish
b e t w e e n solid description a n d m e r e stereotypes, D e w e y a r g u e d , a n d a
b r o a d e r cross-section of the p u b l i c m u s t b e i n c l u d e d in the public
sphere. " W e lie, as E m e r s o n said, in the lap of a n i m m e n s e i n t e l l i g e n c e , "
D e w e y w r o t e . " B u t that intelligence is d o r m a n t a n d its c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
are broken, inarticulate a n d faint until it p o s s e s s e s the local c o m m u n i t y
as its m e d i u m . " 8

A l a s , D e w e y lost the battle. A m e r i c a n political culture since L i p p -

m a n n ' s Public Opinion has b e e n m a r k e d b y steady centralization and
corporatization of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d access. Experts h a v e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y
a s s u m e d control of the i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y for decision m a k i n g and
increased their influence over the m e a n s of exercising p o w e r . W h i l e the
electorate h a s structurally e x p a n d e d t h r o u g h civil rights legislation, p o -
tential voters protest their disconnection from the p r o c e s s of decision
m a k i n g b y recusing t h e m s e l v e s . Occasionally, technological innova-
tions s u c h as the Internet threaten to d e m o c r a t i z e access to a n d use of
information. H o w e v e r , g o v e r n m e n t s a n d c o r p o r a t i o n s — o f t e n through
the e x p a n s i o n of copyright l a w — h a v e q u i c k l y w o r k e d to correct such
trends. Therefore, c o n s i d e r i n g copyright issues as a function of the fail-
ure of the public s p h e r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y reveals the p o v e r t y of the p u b -
lic s p h e r e a n d the w a y s in w h i c h a h e a l t h y public s p h e r e w o u l d d e p e n d
on " t h i n " c o p y r i g h t policy.
C o p y r i g h t policy is set t h r o u g h c o m p l e x interactions a m o n g a vari-
ety of institutions. International o r g a n i z a t i o n s , federal agencies, Con-
gress, state legislatures, l a w j o u r n a l s , private sector contracts, a n d the
habits of writers, artists, a n d m u s i c i a n s all influence the o p e r a t i o n of the
copyright s y s t e m . O f t e n these f o r u m s o p e r a t e w i t h o u t sufficient u n d e r -
standing of the " b i g p i c t u r e " of the c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m : its role, p u r p o s e ,
a n d s c o p e . S e l d o m are copyright issues a d e q u a t e l y e x a m i n e d through
the i n s t r u m e n t s that m i g h t contribute to a h e a l t h y public s p h e r e — m a g -
azines, n e w s p a p e r s , a n d p o p u l a r b o o k s .
 8 INTRODUCTION

T h e r e is n o " l e f t " or " r i g h t " in debates o v e r copyright. T h e r e are

those w h o favor " t h i c k " protection a n d those w h o prefer " t h i n . " A t the
e x t r e m e m a r g i n s there are p r o p e r t y f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s a n d there are lib-
ertarians. S o m e believe that c o p y r i g h t is a n artificial a n d h a r m f u l m o -
n o p o l y that s h o u l d b e d e s t r o y e d or at least i g n o r e d . T h e r e are those
w h o consider copyright a natural right, o n e that m o r a l l y derives from
the v e r y act of i m a g i n i n g a n d creating. O t h e r s believe c o p y r i g h t s h o u l d
adhere to a " l a b o r " t h e o r y of value: investing effort a n d a d d i n g v a l u e to
a p r e v i o u s w o r k or set of data s h o u l d g e n e r a t e legal protection. A n d
s o m e others a d h e r e to the position a r g u e d in this b o o k : copyright is the
result of a w i s e utilitarian bargain, a n d it exists to e n c o u r a g e the invest-
m e n t of time a n d m o n e y in w o r k s that m i g h t not o t h e r w i s e find a d e -
quate reward in a c o m p l e t e l y free m a r k e t . T h e r e are costs a n d benefits,
w i n n e r s a n d losers in e v e r y p o l i c y act. E x a m i n i n g these costs a n d b e n -
efits, a n d p u b l i c l y debating t h e m , c a n yield a m o r e just a n d efficient
copyright s y s t e m , a n d p o s s i b l y a m o r e d y n a m i c culture a n d democracy.

SHIFTING THE FOCUS

This b o o k h a s a n o t h e r mission: to shift the terms of discussion a b o u t

copyright in s c h o l a r l y circles f r o m the theoretical to the empirical. In
other w o r d s , I w a n t to m o v e the d e b a t e a w a y from s u c h m e t a p h y s i c a l
concepts as w h e t h e r a n a u t o n o m o u s " a u t h o r " exists, w h e t h e r s u c h a
b e i n g c o u l d p r o d u c e a stable " t e x t " or " w o r k , " a n d w h e t h e r that text
c o u l d b e in a n y m e a s u r a b l e w a y " o r i g i n a l . " T h e s e are all interesting
questions, b u t t h e y are questions that can f a d e f r o m significance if w e
consider actual incidents of h u m a n b e i n g s creating, labeling, a n d sell-
i n g b o o k s , s o n g s , o r sculptures. A s w e c a n see f r o m e x a m i n i n g the p r o d -
ucts w e associate w i t h M a r k Twain, Willie D i x o n , a n d Bill G a t e s , " a u -
t h o r s h i p " is theoretically suspect, texts are unstable a n d d e t e r m i n e d in
large part b y their readers, a n d originality is m o r e often a p o s e or pre-
tense than a definable aspect of a w o r k . Scholars s u c h as C a t h y D a v i d -
son, M a r t h a W o o d m a n s e e , M a r k R o s e , Peter Jaszi, a n d D a v i d Sanjek
h a v e s h o w n us that the q u e s t i o n s R o l a n d B a r t h e s a n d M i c h e l F o u c a u l t
raised a b o u t o u r w e s t e r n n o t i o n s of a u t h o r s h i p are p o w e r f u l a n d im-
portant. Yet raising these questions is n o t sufficient. T h e r e is m u c h m o r e
w o r k to b e d o n e . 9

For m o s t p e o p l e a n d in m o s t u s a g e s , a n " a u t h o r " is a n o b v i o u s

 INTRODUCTION 9

c o n c e p t . A n a u t h o r is a p e r s o n w h o w r i t e s s o m e t h i n g . If p r o m p t e d ,
m a n y p e o p l e will e l a b o r a t e o n the n o t i o n b y differentiating a " c r e -
a t i v e " a u t h o r f r o m a m e r e transcriber. T h i s distinction carries w i t h it
a s e n s e of cultural hierarchy, w i t h t h e creator o n the n o r t h s i d e of the
e q u a t i o n . A s w e will d i s c o v e r later in this w o r k , t h e distinction y i e l d s
legal a n d c o m m e r c i a l differences as w e l l . B u t t h e s e c o m m o n defini-
tions a n d d i s t i n c t i o n s h a v e c o m e u n d e r s e v e r e s c r u t i n y b y p h i l o s o -
p h e r s a n d literary theorists.
French literary theorist R o l a n d Barthes, in a 1968 e s s a y called " T h e
D e a t h of the A u t h o r , " o p e n e d a line of exploration that m e a n s to un-
d e r s t a n d h o w E u r o p e a n a n d A m e r i c a n literary culture h a s arrived at its
c o m m o n definitions a n d s y s t e m of r e w a r d s for a n author. Barthes w r o t e
his e s s a y to urge a shift in critical attention a w a y f r o m the h u m a n b e i n g
w h o readers i m a g i n e stands a b o v e the action of a w o r k , tugging o n nar-
rative m a r i o n e t t e strings. Barthes defined this i m a g i n e d " a u t h o r " as the
s u m of the a s s u m p t i o n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l consistency, m e a n i n g , and
u n i t y that readers a n d critics h a d traditionally i m p o s e d o n a text.
C o u n t e r to the traditional u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a u t h o r s h i p , Barthes called
for a different w a y of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r o c e s s of reading: as a g a m e
p l a y e d entirely b y the reader. T h e reader or critic, not the author, pro-
duces the m e a n i n g of the text, Barthes a r g u e d . B y taking the historical
or biographical a u t h o r out of the search for m e a n i n g in a t e x t — b y
killing the a u t h o r — B a r t h e s e m p o w e r e d the r e a d e r w i t h i n the environ-
m e n t of textuality. 10

In r e s p o n s e to Barthes, p h i l o s o p h e r M i c h e l F o u c a u l t r e d e f i n e d —
a n d t h u s r e v i v e d — t h e a u t h o r as a relevant, if n o t imperative, function
of reading, criticism, a n d literary analysis. To d o this, F o u c a u l t i m a g -
i n e d a culture in w h i c h the idea of a n " a u t h o r " w o u l d b e d e a d . F o u c a u l t
n o t e d that w i t h o u t a legal definition of a n " a u t h o r , " the l a n g u a g e of crit-
ical d i s c o u r s e w o u l d lack its o p e r a t i o n a l v o c a b u l a r y a n d habits of
analysis. W i t h o u t a n a m e to attach to a w o r k , n o o n e c o u l d b e h e l d ac-
c o u n t a b l e for the content a n d ramifications of the w o r k . F o u c a u l t ' s a u -
thor, o n e w h o c o u l d b e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e , is a legally prescribed a n d de-
scribed entity, n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a flesh-and-blood h u m a n being, a n d cer-
tainly n o t e x c l u s i v e l y a b r o o d i n g r o m a n t i c " g e n i u s , " toiling in darkness
a n d c h a n n e l i n g a m u s e . A n author is n o t just a " w r i t e r " for Foucault.
Graffiti o n a b a t h r o o m w a l l h a s a writer, F o u c a u l t n o t e d , b u t n o t a n a u -
thor. T h e l a w a n d t h u s the culture use the idea of a n " a u t h o r , " e v e n if it
is m e r e l y a proper n a m e , as a locus for a c o m p l e x n e t w o r k of activities
 10 INTRODUCTION

a n d j u d g m e n t s that deal w i t h o w n e r s h i p , p o w e r , k n o w l e d g e , expertise,

constraints, obligations, penalties, a n d retribution. F o u c a u l t defined the
a u t h o r as a legal a n d cultural function, b u t o n e that m a t t e r s d e e p l y to
h o w a culture u n d e r s t a n d s , uses, a n d is m a n i p u l a t e d b y texts. So for
Foucault, the a u t h o r matters. B u t it matters for w h a t it does in a culture,
not necessarily w h o m it represents. This d e p e r s o n a l i z e d " a u t h o r - f u n c -
t i o n " h a s f o u r traits. It is linked to the legal s y s t e m that regulates dis-
c o u r s e w i t h i n a culture. It o p e r a t e s differently in different cultures. A n
" a u t h o r " d o e s n o t p r e c e d e a " w o r k " ( m u c h as for J e a n - P a u l Sartre's
h u m a n being, essence does n o t p r e c e d e e x i s t e n c e ) , b u t c o m e s into b e i n g
only as it f u n c t i o n s in a legal a n d cultural e n v i r o n m e n t . Lastly, it repre-
sents n o t s i m p l y an actual identifiable h u m a n b e i n g b u t p e r h a p s several
i n d e p e n d e n t , contradictory, or conflicting i d e n t i t i e s . 11

W h a t do w e d o a b o u t " a u t h o r s h i p " o n c e w e h a v e l a b e l e d it " c o n -

s t r u c t e d " ? H o w d o e s s u c h a label h e l p us b u i l d a m o r e d e m o c r a t i c
s y s t e m for the e x c h a n g e of c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n ? H o w d o e s it h e l p u s
e n c o u r a g e n e w a n d e m e r g i n g artists a n d m u s i c i a n s a g a i n s t t h e o v e r -
w h e l m i n g force of c o m p a n i e s like M i c r o s o f t , T i m e Warner, a n d Walt
D i s n e y ? W e c a n d e c o n s t r u c t t h e a u t h o r for six m o r e d e c a d e s a n d still
fail to p r e v e n t the i m p e n d i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e c o n t e n t , o w n e r -
s h i p , control, a n d d e l i v e r y of literature, m u s i c , a n d d a t a . A s l a w p r o -
fessor M a r k L e m l e y h a s a r g u e d , a t t a c k i n g t h e b o g e y m a n of " r o m a n -
tic a u t h o r s h i p " is m i s g u i d e d b e c a u s e r o m a n t i c a u t h o r s h i p n e i t h e r ex-
p l a i n s m a n y of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e s in c o p y r i g h t l a w o v e r the
p a s t t w o h u n d r e d y e a r s n o r p r e s c r i b e s a w a y to i m p r o v e the w a y s
copyright law w o r k s . 1 2

A s e v e n t e e n - y e a r - o l d m i x i n g rap m u s i c in her g a r a g e does n o t care

w h e t h e r the r o m a n t i c a u t h o r is d e a d or alive. S h e cares w h e t h e r s h e is
going to get s u e d if she b o r r o w s a t h r e e - s e c o n d string of a long-forgot-
ten disco song. W e m u s t get b e y o n d s u c h esoteric discussions a b o u t
the rise of the romantic author. Instead, w e s h o u l d define a n " a u t h o r "
broadly, as a cultural entity: a " p r o d u c e r . " S i n c e 1909, the c o p y r i g h t
statute h a s r e c o g n i z e d this b r o a d s e n s e of a u t h o r s h i p , the " u n r o m a n t i c "
author. T h e u n r o m a n t i c a u t h o r m i g h t b e a y o u n g r a p p e r w i t h a $2,000
M I D I s a m p l i n g m a c h i n e or a c o r p o r a t i o n like Disney, t h r o u g h a t e a m of
writers w o r k i n g on the c a r t o o n v e r s i o n of Don Quixote. American copy-
right l a w itself u n d e r m i n e s a n y r o m a n t i c s e n s e of i n d i v i d u a l g e n i u s . It
recognizes b o t h Microsoft a n d M i l e s D a v i s as a u t h o r s in a legal sense.
T h e l a w has c h a n g e d over the c o u r s e of the c e n t u r y to create that s p e -
 INTRODUCTION II

cial legal entity that in fact h a s little or n o t h i n g to do w i t h a personified

" a u t h o r " as w e traditionally i m a g i n e . Still, w e m u s t deal w i t h the " p r o -
d u c e r " in s o m e form, in court if n o w h e r e else.

THE CASE AGAINST "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" TALK

F r o m the m i d d l e of the n i n e t e e n t h century, those w h o h a v e p u s h e d to

enlarge a n d d e e p e n copyright protection h a v e i n v o k e d the n e e d to pro-
tect a u t h o r s f r o m " t h e f t . " A s w e shall see in the c h a p t e r s to c o m e , s o m e
of those claims w e r e w a r r a n t e d , a n d the U.S. C o n g r e s s a d j u s t e d the
laws to deal w i t h these p r o b l e m s . H o w e v e r , since 1909, courts a n d cor-
porations h a v e exploited public c o n c e r n for r e w a r d i n g established a u -
thors b y steadily limiting the rights of readers, c o n s u m e r s , a n d emerg-
ing artists. All along, the author w a s d e p l o y e d as a s t r a w m a n in the
debate. T h e u n r e w a r d e d authorial g e n i u s w a s u s e d as a rhetorical dis-
traction that a p p e a l e d to A m e r i c a n romantic i n d i v i d u a l i s m . A s c o p y -
right historian L y m a n R a y P a t t e r s o n h a s articulated, c o p y r i g h t h a s in
the twentieth c e n t u r y really b e e n a b o u t the rights of publishers first, a u -
thors s e c o n d , a n d the p u b l i c a distant third. If w e c o n t i n u e to s k e w e r
this " s t r a w m a n " of a u t h o r s h i p w i t h o u r dull scholarly b a y o n e t s , w e
will m i s s the i m p o r t a n t issues: o w n e r s h i p , control, access, a n d use.
It is essential to u n d e r s t a n d that c o p y r i g h t in the A m e r i c a n tradi-
tion w a s not m e a n t to b e a " p r o p e r t y r i g h t " as the p u b l i c generally
u n d e r s t a n d s property. It w a s originally a n a r r o w federal p o l i c y that
granted a limited trade m o n o p o l y in e x c h a n g e for universal u s e a n d ac-
cess. Lately, h o w e v e r , A m e r i c a n courts, periodicals, a n d p u b l i c rhetoric
s e e m to h a v e e n g a g e d a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y in " p r o p e r t y t a l k " w h e n dis-
cussing copyright. T h e use of " p r o p e r t y " as a m e t a p h o r w h e n consid-
ering copyright q u e s t i o n s is n o t new. T h e earliest l a n d m a r k cases in
British c o p y r i g h t discuss " t h e great q u e s t i o n of literary p r o p e r t y . " 13

A n d as w e will see, M a r k Twain i n v o k e d property talk to shift the de-

b a t e a w a y f r o m w h a t w a s g o o d for A m e r i c a at large to w h a t w o u l d ben-
efit successful authors. H o w e v e r , t h r o u g h o u t the e i g h t e e n t h a n d nine-
teenth centuries in b o t h E n g l a n d a n d the U n i t e d States, p r o p e r t y talk
w a s b a l a n c e d a n d n e u t r a l i z e d b y p o l i c y t a l k — a discussion of w h a t is
best for society.
T h e p h r a s e "intellectual p r o p e r t y " is fairly y o u n g . M a r k L e m l e y
writes that the earliest u s e of the p h r a s e h e c a n find occurs in the title of
 12 INTRODUCTION

the U n i t e d N a t i o n s ' World Intellectual P r o p e r t y O r g a n i z a t i o n , first as-

s e m b l e d in 1967. S o o n after that, the A m e r i c a n Patent L a w Association
a n d the A m e r i c a n Bar A s s o c i a t i o n Section o n Patent, T r a d e m a r k , a n d
C o p y r i g h t L a w c h a n g e d their n a m e s to incorporate "intellectual p r o p -
erty." O v e r the p a s t thirty years, the p h r a s e "intellectual p r o p e r t y " h a s
entered c o m m o n u s a g e w i t h s o m e d a n g e r o u s c o n s e q u e n c e s . 14

W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n all q u e s t i o n s of a u t h o r s h i p , originality, use,

a n d access to ideas a n d e x p r e s s i o n s b e c o m e f r a m e d in the t e r m s of
" p r o p e r t y r i g h t s " ? T h e discussion e n d s . T h e r e is n o p o w e r f u l p r o p e r t y
a r g u m e n t that c a n p e r s u a d e a p e o p l e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t rewarding
" s t a r v i n g a r t i s t s " n o t to grant the m a x i m u m possible protection. H o w
c a n o n e a r g u e for " t h e f t " ?
T h e r e f o r e , w e m u s t c h a n g e the t e r m s of the debate o n c e again. If
this b o o k c a n p e r s u a d e readers that c o p y r i g h t issues are n o w m o r e
a b o u t large c o r p o r a t i o n s limiting access to a n d u s e of their p r o d u c t s ,
a n d less a b o u t l o n e l y songwriters s n a p p i n g their pencil tips u n d e r the
glare of b a r e b u l b s , m a y b e it c a n revive the discussion. Instead of trying
to p r e v e n t " t h e f t , " w e s h o u l d try to g e n e r a t e a c o p y r i g h t p o l i c y that
w o u l d e n c o u r a g e creative expression w i t h o u t limiting the prospects for
future creators. W e m u s t s e e k a b a l a n c e . Historically a n d philosophi-
cally, "intellectual p r o p e r t y " a c c o m p l i s h e s neither. T h e idea a n d the
p h r a s e h a v e b e e n c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e . Instead of bolstering "intellectual
p r o p e r t y , " w e s h o u l d b e forging "intellectual policy."

F R O M T W A I N T O 2 LIVE C R E W

W h e n a n d h o w did " p r o p e r t y t a l k " start d o m i n a t i n g A m e r i c a n c o p y -

right discourse? Public a n d congressional debates over copyright re-
form from 1870 t h r o u g h 1909 set the t o n e for the rest of the twentieth
century. B e c a u s e of the w o r k of M a r k T w a i n a n d others, " p r o p e r t y t a l k "
g a i n e d a place i n the p u b l i c i m a g i n a t i o n . Its p o w e r g r e w steadily after
that. T w a i n lived a n d w r o t e at the m o m e n t w h e n c o p y r i g h t issues
l e a p e d off the p r i n t e d p a g e a n d into the a t m o s p h e r e of sight a n d s o u n d .
A t the m o m e n t w h e n Twain f o u n d r e a s o n to a p p l a u d the 1909 revision
of the copyright law, A m e r i c a n culture a n d t e c h n o l o g y rendered it out-
dated o n c e again. T h e first t w o d e c a d e s of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y s a w the
i n v e n t i o n of p h o n o g r a p h s a n d recording m a c h i n e s . R a g t i m e com-
p o s e r s , w h o m a s t e r e d their art t h r o u g h c o m m u n a l creativity a n d an
 INTRODUCTION 13

e m p h a s i s o n style, s u d d e n l y h a d to c o m e to terms w i t h the fear that an

u n p r o t e c t e d w o r k w o u l d leave the a u t h o r w i t h o u t financial r e w a r d .
T h e s e c h a n g e s m a d e p o p u l a r expression profitable. F r o m the first t w o
d e c a d e s of the twentieth century, w e see the b e g i n n i n g of the practice
that w o u l d h a u n t b l a c k m u s i c i a n s for d e c a d e s : w h i t e c o m p o s e r s filing
for copyright protection o n w o r k s created out of the c o m m o n s of
African A m e r i c a n aesthetic traditions.
D u r i n g this time, the m o s t influential legal m i n d of the twentieth
century, Justice O l i v e r Wendell H o l m e s , a l m o s t s i n g l e - h a n d e d l y re-
w r o t e A m e r i c a n copyright l a w a n d a l l o w e d it to creep into areas for
w h i c h it w a s n e v e r i n t e n d e d . T h e habits a n d structures of these n e w in-
dustries, m u s i c a n d film, a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y u n d e r m i n e d the integrity
a n d simplicity of the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy. A s this b o o k s h o w s ,
these decisions w e r e s o m e w h a t out of character for H o l m e s .
Since the 1830s, copyright l a w h a s w o r k e d well w h i l e it o n l y h a d to
deal w i t h the w r i t t e n w o r d , a n d w h e n f e w firms c o u l d afford the ex-
p e n s e of p r o d u c i n g a n d m a r k e t i n g b o o k s . N o t c o i n c i d e n t a l l y the A m e r -
ican architects a n d original interpreters of the l a w at the t i m e h e l d a
strong s e n s e of obligation to a rich public sphere. To u n d e r s t a n d the
w a y s that c o p y r i g h t l a w c a n conflict w i t h a n d inhibit A m e r i c a n cultural
expression, w e m u s t consider the centrality of orality to A m e r i c a n cul-
ture, as p e r f o r m e d t h r o u g h c o u n t r y a n d b l u e s - b a s e d m u s i c a n d the tall
tale. A h u n d r e d different p e o p l e can sing a b o u t Stagger Lee or J o h n
Henry, b u t the p e r s o n w h o sings it best gets r e w a r d e d most. Style mat-
ters m o r e t h a n s u b s t a n c e in oral cultures. N o o n e raises objections that
" S t a g g e r L e e is m y s o n g . " O r a l traditions that s p r o u t written traditions
h a n d l e questions of a u t h o r s h i p a n d originality differently t h a n long-
time w r i t t e n traditions do. T h e A m e r i c a n oral-written tradition revels
in c o m m o n tradition a n d chains of influence, a n d uses t h e m w i t h w i t
a n d style. This aesthetic is clearest w i t h i n African A m e r i c a n oral, liter-
ary, a n d m u s i c a l t r a d i t i o n s . 15

Z o r a N e a l e H u r s t o n , in a n anthropological e s s a y o n A f r i c a n A m e r -
ican expression, e x p l a i n e d h o w a fixation o n E u r o p e a n notions of
authorship a n d originality a l l o w e d a m i s r e a d i n g of b l a c k aesthetics:
" T h e N e g r o , the w o r l d over, is f a m o u s as a m i m i c . B u t this in n o w a y
d a m a g e s his s t a n d i n g as a n original. M i m i c r y is a n art in itself. If it
is n o t , t h e n all art m u s t fall b y the s a m e b l o w that strikes it d o w n . "
H u r s t o n explained that w h a t w h i t e c o m m e n t a t o r s derided as " m i m -
i c r y " w a s actually skillful rendering a n d repetition. T h e practice h a s its
 14 INTRODUCTION

o w n internal aesthetic sense, its o w n "originality." A s H u r s t o n w r o t e ,

" M o r e o v e r , the contention that the N e g r o imitates f r o m a feeling of in-
feriority is incorrect. H e m i m i c s for the love of it. . . . H e does it as the
m o c k i n g - b i r d does it, for the love of it, a n d n o t b e c a u s e h e w i s h e s to b e
like the o n e i m i t a t e d . " 16

Orally b a s e d literatures are likely to b e h e a v i l y i n f o r m e d b y i m m e -

diate a u d i e n c e response, a n d the storyteller m u s t react to w h a t h a s been
told before a n d to w h a t is going o n a r o u n d h i m . T h e storyteller h a s an
i m p o r t a n t role, o n e of demystified a u t h o r s h i p . Yet there is n o overrid-
ing c o n c e r n for authorial " o r i g i n a l i t y " as c o p y r i g h t l a w defines it. A s
A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c g r e w steadily Africanized, a u t h o r s h i p g r e w
fuzzier a n d authorial creativity b e c a m e m o r e of a legal c o n c e p t t h a n a
cultural o n e . If the U n i t e d States a d h e r e d strongly to the principle of a u -
thorial r e w a r d as the sole function of c o p y r i g h t law, e v e r y rock-and-roll
m u s i c i a n w o u l d o w e m o n e y to Mississippi Delta blues m u s i c i a n s . In-
stead, w e consider the twelve-bar blues to b e c o m m u n i t y property, a
v a l u a b l e c o m m o n s for all A m e r i c a n s to enjoy.
C o n c u r r e n t w i t h t h e t r i u m p h s of b l a c k e x p r e s s i o n in the last h a l f
of t h e t w e n t i e t h century, a t e c h n o l o g i c a l b o o m f o s t e r e d a t r u e d e m o c -
r a t i z a t i o n of e x p r e s s i o n . P h o t o c o p y m a c h i n e s , c h e a p c a m e r a s , film,
v i d e o t a p e , a n d digital a n d c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y h a v e a l l o w e d al-
m o s t a n y p e r s o n to distribute a f a c s i m i l e of a l m o s t a n y t h i n g to a l m o s t
a n y w h e r e . This c o n v e r g e n c e of c u l t u r a l c h a n g e a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l lib-
eration h a s c r e a t e d w h a t c u l t u r a l theorists h a v e d u b b e d " t h e post-
m o d e r n c o n d i t i o n . " A g a i n s t this b a c k g r o u n d , rap m u s i c h a s g r o w n to
d o m i n a t e A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r culture in the last t w o d e c a d e s . It h a s
also r e n d e r e d c o p y r i g h t l a w i n c a p a b l e of arbitrating u n d e r the old
d e f i n i t i o n s of " a u t h o r , " " w o r k , " o r " o r i g i n a l i t y . " A n y p e r s o n w i t h a
series of r e c o r d e d tracks f r o m old s o n g s c a n f u s e t h e m t o g e t h e r w i t h a
$ 2 , 0 0 0 electronic m i x e r a n d r a p o v e r t h e b e d of o t h e r p e o p l e ' s m u s i c ,
c r e a t i n g a n e w " w o r k " c o m p o s e d b y d o z e n s of " a u t h o r s . " A s a result
of this ill fit b e t w e e n art a n d law, n o o n e k n e w w h a t the g u i d e l i n e s for
digital s a m p l i n g w e r e for the first d e c a d e of r e c o r d e d r a p m u s i c .
A r t i s t s , g r o w i n g f e a r f u l of suits f r o m large r e c o r d c o m p a n i e s , t e n d e d
to s a m p l e o b s c u r e s o n g s . L i c e n s i n g fees f l u c t u a t e d irregularly, a n d n o
o n e c o u l d s a f e l y p r e d i c t t h e p e n a l t y for u n a u t h o r i z e d s a m p l i n g . O n
a n y g i v e n day, a r a p artist m i g h t h a v e g o t t e n r i p p e d off b y a n o v e r -
p r i c e d l i c e n s i n g fee, or a p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n y m i g h t h a v e b e e n
b u r n e d b y c h a r g i n g too little for a s a m p l e that h e l p e d p r o d u c e a top
 INTRODUCTION 15

hit. A f t e r a l a n d m a r k s a m p l i n g case in 1 9 9 1 , the p r a c t i c e s solidified,

b u t n o t for the better. T h e p r a c t i c e of s a m p l i n g w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n
h a s all b u t e n d e d . H o w e v e r , this m o v e to protect e s t a b l i s h e d s o n g -
w r i t e r s at t h e e x p e n s e of e m e r g i n g o n e s r u n s c o u n t e r to b o t h the in-
tent of c o p y r i g h t l a w a n d t h e b e s t interest of society.

REDISCOVERING INTELLECTUAL POLICY

C o p y r i g h t s h o u l d b e a b o u t policy, not property. M a n y recent trends and

c h a n g e s in c o p y r i g h t l a w s — i n c l u d i n g p r o p o s a l s that w o u l d protect the
content of databases b o t h d o m e s t i c a l l y a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y — a r e b a d
policy. T h e s e c h a n g e s threaten d e m o c r a t i c discourse, scholarly re-
search, a n d the free flow of information. T h e goal of the entire c o p y r i g h t
s y s t e m s h o u l d b e to r e c o g n i z e the p e r n i c i o u s repercussions of restrict-
ing information, yet to r e w a r d stylistic innovation. To envision the best
possible copyright s y s t e m — o n e that w o u l d e n c o u r a g e creativity and
d e m o c r a c y — w e m u s t revise our n o t i o n of intellectual " t h e f t . " Y o u can-
not " s t e a l " a n idea, a style, a " l o o k a n d f e e l . " T h e s e things are the r a w
material of the n e x t m o v e in literature, art, politics, or m u s i c . A n d using
s o m e o n e ' s i d e a does n o t d i m i n i s h its p o w e r . T h e r e is n o natural scarcity
of ideas a n d information. To enrich d e m o c r a t i c s p e e c h a n d foster fertile
creativity, w e s h o u l d a v o i d the rhetorical traps that spring u p w h e n w e
regard c o p y r i g h t as " p r o p e r t y " i n s t e a d of policy. We m u s t also redis-
cover, reinvent, a n d strengthen the idea-expression dichotomy. A n d w e
will b e able to h a v e a m o r e i n f o r m e d p u b l i c discussion a b o u t the pur-
p o s e a n d s c o p e of copyright.
This b o o k has three g o a l s . T h e first is to trace the d e v e l o p m e n t of
A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w t h r o u g h the t w e n t i e t h century. After e x a m i n -
ing the principles a n d h i s t o r y of British a n d A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t law, it
will p r o c e e d to a series of a c c o u n t s of h o w copyright l a w has affected
A m e r i c a n literature, film, television, a n d m u s i c . T h e s e c o n d goal is to
succinctly a n d clearly outline the principles of c o p y r i g h t w h i l e describ-
ing the a l a r m i n g erosion of the n o t i o n that c o p y r i g h t s h o u l d protect
specific e x p r e s s i o n s but n o t the ideas that lie b e n e a t h the expressions.
T h e third a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t p u r p o s e of this b o o k is to a r g u e that
A m e r i c a n culture a n d politics w o u l d function better u n d e r a s y s t e m
that g u a r a n t e e s " t h i n " c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n — j u s t e n o u g h protection
to e n c o u r a g e creativity, yet limited so that e m e r g i n g artists, scholars,
 16 INTRODUCTION

writers, a n d students can enjoy a rich p u b l i c d o m a i n a n d b r o a d "fair

u s e " of c o p y r i g h t e d material. W h i l e " t h i c k " c o p y r i g h t has h a d a chill-
ing effect o n creativity, thin c o p y r i g h t w o u l d enrich A m e r i c a n litera-
ture, m u s i c , art, a n d d e m o c r a t i c culture.
This b o o k is the result of six years of u n s y s t e m a t i c intellectual graz-
ing. T h e questions I e n d e d u p a n s w e r i n g diverged greatly from the
questions I a s k e d six years ago. I started w i t h too m a n y a s s u m p t i o n s
a n d too little k n o w l e d g e . N o w I h a v e too m a n y a s s u m p t i o n s a n d too
m u c h k n o w l e d g e . T h a t ' s s o m e progress at least.
This is n o t a legal history. It's a cultural h i s t o r y of a legal p h e n o m e -
non. I've s p e n t m a n y h o u r s in l a w libraries, b u t I ' m n o t a lawyer. M y
lack of legal training is b o t h a strength a n d a w e a k n e s s . I h a v e b e e n free
to s u r v e y the literature a n d material w i t h o u t the strictures of legal the-
ory g u i d i n g m e . I h a v e also b e e n able to v i e w the copyright system as a
p r o d u c e r a n d c o n s u m e r m i g h t , rather t h a n as a n arbitrator or a d v o c a t e
w o u l d . I did n o t fear that u n c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w s m i g h t h i n d e r m y legal
career, b e c a u s e I h a v e n o n e . H o w e v e r , i g n o r a n c e is n o t a v e r y effective
tool in scholarship. I w o u l d n o t r e c o m m e n d it. So I m a d e s u r e to seek
g u i d a n c e from s o m e of the finest legal m i n d s I c o u l d find to help m e
out. A n exciting c o m m u n i t y of legal scholars h a v e a r g u e d the p u b l i c ' s
case in these debates. U s i n g their w o r k , I h a v e tried to describe a proc-
ess b y w h i c h a w e l l - b a l a n c e d c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m c a n e n c o u r a g e n e w cul-
tural expression a n d h e l p d e m o c r a c y w o r k better. Or, m o r e precisely, I
h a v e criticized a n e m e r g i n g c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m that increasingly w o r k s
against those goals. Literature, m u s i c , a n d art are essential e l e m e n t s of
o u r p u b l i c f o r u m s . T h e y are all f o r m s of d e m o c r a t i c s p e e c h a n d s h o u l d
b e e n c o u r a g e d a n d r e w a r d e d , n o t chilled w i t h threats of legal action.
 I

Copyright and American Culture

Ideas, Expressions, and Democracy

AT S O M E P O I N T late in e v e r y televised baseball g a m e , an a n n o u n c e r

s o u n d s the familiar w a r n i n g : " N o pictures, descriptions, or a c c o u n t s of
this g a m e m a y b e rebroadcast or retransmitted w i t h o u t the expressed,
written c o n s e n t of the office of the C o m m i s s i o n e r of M a j o r L e a g u e Base-
b a l l . " Baseball fans rarely question w h e t h e r this s t a t e m e n t is true. It
turns out that this declaration is a far stronger w a r n i n g t h a n c o p y r i g h t
l a w justifies. If o n e b a s e b a l l fan is w a t c h i n g the s e v e n t h g a m e of the
World Series o n television, a n d a n o t h e r is out of the country, say, in A r -
gentina, there is n o legal a u t h o r i t y that c o u l d or w o u l d stop the first fan
from writing a detailed description or a c c o u n t of the g a m e a n d s e n d i n g
it v i a e-mail to the other. T h e office of the c o m m i s s i o n e r m a y claim to
protect the specific pictures that e m a n a t e f r o m the television broadcast
b e c a u s e the n e t w o r k a n d Major L e a g u e Baseball h a v e a g r e e d to share
control of those rights. T h e y h a v e a n interest i n p r e v e n t i n g sports b a r s
from charging a d m i s s i o n to v i e w a televised g a m e that m i g h t b e avail-
able o n l y o n satellite or pay-per-view, for instance. B u t if a n e w s p a p e r
p h o t o g r a p h e r captures a p h o t o of a great over-the-shoulder catch in
centerfield, s h e controls the copyright to that i m a g e . H e r j o b will require
her to " r e t r a n s m i t " the i m a g e over a m o d e m a n d p h o n e wires to h e r
n e w s p a p e r , a n d the n e w s p a p e r will p r o b a b l y retransmit it to the A s s o -
ciated Press for other p a p e r s to use. In addition, all the sports reporters
covering the World Series retransmit descriptions a n d a c c o u n t s of the
g a m e to all their readers. T h e y n e v e r ask for or receive written c o n s e n t
to do s o . B e s i d e s , w h o w a s the " a u t h o r " of D o n L a r s o n ' s perfect g a m e
in the World Series? T h e Office of the C o m m i s s i o n e r ? W h e n e v e r A m e r -
icans e n c o u n t e r legal l a n g u a g e , there is the distinct possibility they
will believe w h a t e v e r it c o m m a n d s . Major L e a g u e Baseball is taking
liberties, a n d therefore w e are losing t h e m . This is b u t o n e e x a m p l e of
h o w the m y t h o l o g y of c o p y r i g h t interferes w i t h the p u b l i c ' s access to

17
 18 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

information. T h e p u b l i c generally h a s m o r e rights u n d e r the l a w than

n e t w o r k s , p u b l i s h e r s , a n d record c o m p a n i e s w a n t to c o n c e d e . H o w -
ever, the w i d e s p r e a d public p e r c e p t i o n that copyright l a w protects
ideas, i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d data h a s a chilling effect o n j o u r n a l i s m , schol-
arship, analysis, criticism, a n d debate.

PATENTS,TRADEMARKS,AND COPYRIGHTS

T h e r e are three m a i n b r a n c h e s of "intellectual p r o p e r t y " l a w in the

U n i t e d States: patent, t r a d e m a r k , a n d copyright law. In recent y e a r s , a
fourth area, t r a d e secret law, h a s g r o w n in i m p o r t a n c e as a w a y of re-
w a r d i n g c o m m e r c i a l i n n o v a t i o n s o u t s i d e the p u b l i c licensing s c h e m e s
that p a t e n t a n d c o p y r i g h t l a w employ. In addition, m o s t industries that
deal in "intellectual p r o p e r t y " contractually constrain their participants
s u c h that contract l a w b e c o m e s de facto "intellectual p r o p e r t y " law.
Lately, there h a v e b e e n s o m e efforts to create n e w t y p e s of "intellectual
p r o p e r t y " l a w to h a n d l e n e w practices a n d technologies s u c h as archi-
tecture, s e m i c o n d u c t o r design, a n d d a t a b a s e p r o d u c t i o n . E a c h of these
b r a n c h e s of w h a t h a s b e c o m e k n o w n as "intellectual p r o p e r t y l a w " h a s
distinct f o r m s a n d functions, b u t m a n y p e o p l e b l e n d their t e r m s a n d
p u r p o s e s w h e n discussing "intellectual p r o p e r t y . " To fully e x a m i n e the
d e v e l o p m e n t of copyright l a w in the t w e n t i e t h century, w e m u s t clearly
u n d e r s t a n d its distinct place w i t h i n "intellectual p r o p e r t y " in general.
Patent l a w e n c o u r a g e s invention. It grants a t e m p o r a r y m o n o p -
oly to a n i n v e n t o r of a tangible, useful, a n d " n o n o b v i o u s " d e v i c e or
process. Patents c o v e r inventions a n d p r o c e s s e s , n o t w o r d s , texts, or
p h r a s e s . A patent m o n o p o l y lasts a m u c h shorter t i m e t h a n c o p y r i g h t
d o e s — t w e n t y y e a r s c o m p a r e d w i t h life of the author plus seventy
y e a r s — b u t protects m o r e broadly. A patent protects the ideas, as w e l l as
the specific i n v e n t i o n itself, so that a similar invention that operates
along the s a m e lines as the p r o t e c t e d i n v e n t i o n w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d an
i n f r i n g e m e n t . Patents c o m e in three types. Utility p a t e n t s protect n e w
processes, m a c h i n e s , or c o m p o s i t i o n s of m a t t e r (and i m p r o v e m e n t s on
p r e v i o u s l y i n v e n t e d p r o c e s s e s , m a c h i n e s , or c o m p o s i t i o n s ) . D e s i g n pat-
ents protect n e w w a y s of p l a n n i n g or constructing articles of m a n u f a c -
ture. Plant patents protect n e w varieties of v e g e t a t i o n created through
b r e e d i n g or genetic engineering. Plant patents are especially v a l u a b l e
for b o t h a g r i b u s i n e s s a n d p h a r m a c e u t i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . A p r o d u c t
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 19

m u s t m e e t three s t a n d a r d s to q u a l i f y for p a t e n t protection: usefulness,

novelty, a n d n o n o b v i o u s n e s s . T h e s e u s e d to b e h i g h s t a n d a r d s to meet.
But occasionally cases a r i s e — a s in the attempt to patent the h u m a n
g e n o m e — t h a t w e a k e n , e v a d e , or c o m p l i c a t e these standards. O n c e a
p r o d u c t is c o v e r e d b y a patent, the p a t e n t h o l d e r is required to place the
details of the design in the p u b l i c record, s o that others m i g h t benefit
from n e w or n e w l y a p p l i e d k n o w l e d g e . I n e x c h a n g e for the p u b l i c
service of disclosure, the patent h o l d e r t e m p o r a r i l y receives exclusive
rights to m a k e , sell, a n d authorize others to m a k e or sell the p a t e n t e d
product. 1

T r a d e m a r k l a w lets a c o m p a n y protect a n d enjoy its " g o o d w i l l " in

the m a r k e t p l a c e . A t r a d e m a r k is s o m e specific signifier s u c h as a logo,
design, color s c h e m e , smell, s o u n d , or container s h a p e that points to the
p r o d u c t ' s origin. It allows a n d p r o v i d e s a n i n c e n t i v e for a c o m p a n y to
offer a consistent p r o d u c t or s o m e predictable quality. F o r instance,
w h e n e v e r y o u b u y a b e v e r a g e labeled " C o c a - C o l a , " y o u a s s u m e from
the n a m e o n the c a n that it will taste a certain way, a n d that it will taste
just like the last C o k e y o u d r a n k . A l t h o u g h , as legal scholar R o s e m a r y
C o o m b e n o t e s , t r a d e m a r k s do n o t h i n g to g u a r a n t e e a p r o d u c t ' s quality
or consistency. T h e social v a l u e of t r a d e m a r k s is m i n i m a l . T h e i r c o m -
mercial a n d p r o p r i e t a r y v a l u e is e n o r m o u s . 2

Trade secret law, w h i c h is extralegislative in origin a n d nature, is

a p o w e r f u l part of "intellectual p r o p e r t y . " It h a s f e w limitations. A n
idea's p e r c e i v e d v a l u e is the o n l y basis for a t r a d e secret. T h e secret
m a k e r declares s o m e t h i n g a secret, so it is. E x a m p l e s of subjects of trade
secrets i n c l u d e c h e m i c a l s , c o m p l e x (and n o t n e c e s s a r i l y " n e w " or " n o n -
o b v i o u s " ) m a n u f a c t u r i n g processes, lists of c u s t o m e r s or potential
clients, " s o u r c e c o d e " for c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s , a n d corporate policies.
T h e r e are t w o " s t a n d a r d s " for trade secret legal protection: " s e c r e c y "
a n d " c o m p e t i t i v e a d v a n t a g e . " In other w o r d s , a trade secret ceases to be
a t r a d e secret o n c e the secret gets out b y legal m e a n s or w a s easy to as-
certain i n the first place. A n d , if the c o m p a n y fails to realize a n y real
benefit f r o m protecting a trade secret, t h e n distributing the i n f o r m a t i o n
in q u e s t i o n w o u l d n o t m a k e the distributor legally liable. Trade secrets
theoretically c a n last forever. T h e y are essentially the payoff for not pat-
enting or c o p y r i g h t i n g e x p r e s s i o n s , information, or processes. O n c e
p a t e n t e d , a process or f o r m u l a w o u l d b e h i g h l y p r o t e c t e d , b u t o n l y for
t w e n t y y e a r s . Trade secrets, if p r o p e r l y e n f o r c e d , c a n b e p o w e r f u l and
valuable c o m m e r c i a l tools. T h e best e x a m p l e of a successfully protected
 20 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

trade secret is the recipe for C o c a - C o l a . If the c o m p a n y h a d p a t e n t e d it,

the f o r m u l a long a g o w o u l d h a v e lapsed into the p u b l i c d o m a i n . B y
k e e p i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n u n p r o t e c t e d , C o c a - C o l a retains c o m p l e t e con-
trol for as long as it w a n t s . Trade secrets are violated t h r o u g h larceny,
spying, or bribery. Unlike federal p a t e n t a n d c o p y r i g h t l a w s , trade se-
cret l a w s are e x t e n d e d a n d e n f o r c e d t h r o u g h the c o m m o n law. 3

C o p y r i g h t , o n the other h a n d , w a s i n t e n d e d to protect literary, artis-

tic, m u s i c a l , a n d c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d w o r k s for a limited p e r i o d of
time. This grant of a limited m o n o p o l y against republication is s u p -
p o s e d to p r o v i d e e n o u g h of a r e w a r d to e n c o u r a g e creativity. Black's
Law Dictionary defines copyright as " t h e right of literary property as rec-
o g n i z e d a n d s a n c t i o n e d b y positive l a w . " T h e law, in the British a n d
4

A m e r i c a n traditions, is b a s e d on the c o n c e p t that a n " a u t h o r " c a n cre-

ate a distinct " w o r k " b y instilling his or h e r effort a n d skill to render it
" o r i g i n a l . " Originality is a f u n d a m e n t a l principle of copyright. It im-
plies that the a u t h o r or artist created the w o r k t h r o u g h his or h e r o w n
skill, labor, a n d j u d g m e n t . 5

COPYRIGHT DEFINED

A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t e m a n a t e s from the U.S. Constitution, w h i c h directs

C o n g r e s s to create a federal l a w that provides a n i n c e n t i v e to create a n d
distribute n e w w o r k s . T h e l a w g r a n t s a n e x c l u s i v e right to copy, sell,
a n d p e r f o r m a w o r k of original a u t h o r s h i p that h a s b e e n fixed in a tan-
gible m e d i u m . T h e m o n o p o l y lasts for a limited t i m e a n d is restricted
b y several provisions that allow for g o o d faith u s e b y private citizens,
journalists, students, a n d scholars. C o p y r i g h t w a s created as a policy
that b a l a n c e d the interests of a u t h o r s , publishers, a n d readers. It w a s
not i n t e n d e d to b e a restrictive p r o p e r t y right. But it h a s e v o l v e d over
recent d e c a d e s into o n e part of a m a t r i x of c o m m e r c i a l legal protections
n o w called "intellectual p r o p e r t y . " A l t h o u g h t h e y h a v e different philo-
sophical f o u n d a t i o n s a n d histories, c o p y r i g h t h a s b e c o m e b o u n d in
practice to s u c h areas of the l a w as t r a d e m a r k regulation, p a t e n t law,
unfair c o m p e t i t i o n law, a n d t r a d e secrets.
C o p y r i g h t is m o r e t h a n o n e right. It is a " b u n d l e " of rights that in-
cludes the exclusive right to m a k e c o p i e s , a u t h o r i z e others to m a k e
copies, create derivative w o r k s s u c h as translations a n d displays in
other m e d i a , sell the w o r k , p e r f o r m the w o r k publicly, a n d petition a
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 21

court for relief in case others infringe o n a n y of these rights. C o n t r o l of

these rights c a n b e t r a n s f e r r e d — o r " l i c e n s e d " — v i a contract w i t h an-
other party. For instance, a novelist o w n s the c o p y r i g h t for a n u n p u b -
lished m a n u s c r i p t , b u t m u s t sign a contract that transfers s o m e ele-
m e n t s of that b u n d l e of rights to a b o o k p u b l i s h e r before the b o o k can
reach stores. T h e novelist m i g h t retain the " d e r i v a t i v e w o r k s " portion
of that b u n d l e a n d later n e g o t i a t e a contract to transfer that right to a
m o t i o n picture studio. Part of the p r o b l e m w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g the n a -
ture of c o p y r i g h t is that the w o r d right is e m b e d d e d in it. W h e n A m e r i -
cans r e a d the w o r d right, the adjective inalienable tends to j u m p in front
of it. H o w e v e r , c o p y r i g h t s w o u l d b e m o r e accurately described as
" c o p y p r i v i l e g e s . " A c c o r d i n g to A m e r i c a n habits of political t h o u g h t ,
rights p r e c e d e d the state; privileges e m a n a t e f r o m the state. C o p y r i g h t
is a " d e a l " that the A m e r i c a n p e o p l e , t h r o u g h its C o n g r e s s , m a d e w i t h
the writers a n d publishers of b o o k s . A u t h o r s a n d p u b l i s h e r s w o u l d get
a limited m o n o p o l y for a short p e r i o d of t i m e , a n d the p u b l i c w o u l d get
access to those protected w o r k s a n d free u s e of the facts, data, a n d ideas
within them.

THE ROLE OF COPYRIGHT

T h e f r a m e r s of the U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n instructed C o n g r e s s to d e v e l o p a

statute that w o u l d grant a n incentive for a u t h o r s a n d scientists to create
a n d explore. W i t h o u t a legal g u a r a n t e e that t h e y w o u l d profit from their
labors a n d creations, the framers feared too f e w w o u l d e m b a r k o n cre-
ative e n d e a v o r s . If there w e r e n o c o p y r i g h t l a w s , u n s c r u p u l o u s p u b -
lishers w o u l d s i m p l y c o p y p o p u l a r w o r k s a n d sell t h e m at a l o w price,
p a y i n g n o royalties to the author. B u t just as importantly, the framers
a n d later jurists c o n c l u d e d that creativity d e p e n d s on the use, criticism,
s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n , a n d consideration of p r e v i o u s w o r k s . Therefore, they
a r g u e d , authors s h o u l d enjoy this m o n o p o l y just long e n o u g h to pro-
v i d e a n incentive to create m o r e , b u t the w o r k s h o u l d live afterward in
the " p u b l i c d o m a i n , " as c o m m o n p r o p e r t y of the reading p u b l i c . A m o -
n o p o l y price o n b o o k s w a s c o n s i d e r e d a " t a x " o n the p u b l i c . It w a s in
the best interest of the early republic to limit this tax to the a m o u n t that
w o u l d b e sufficient to p r o v i d e a n incentive, b u t n o m o r e a n d for n o
longer t h a n that. This principle of c o p y r i g h t as a n incentive to create
has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d in recent d e c a d e s b y the idea of c o p y r i g h t as a
 22 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

" p r o p e r t y r i g h t . " Therefore, m a n y recent statutes, treaties, a n d c o p y -

right cases h a v e s e e m e d to favor the interests of established a u t h o r s
a n d p r o d u c e r s over t h o s e of readers, researchers, a n d future creators.
T h e s e recent trends r u n counter to the original p u r p o s e of A m e r i c a n
copyright.
J a m e s M a d i s o n , w h o i n t r o d u c e d the copyright a n d patent clause to
the Constitutional C o n v e n t i o n , a r g u e d in The Tederalist that c o p y r i g h t
w a s o n e of t h o s e f e w acts of g o v e r n m e n t in w h i c h the " p u b l i c g o o d
fully coincides w i t h the claims of i n d i v i d u a l s . " M a d i s o n did n o t e n g a g e
in " p r o p e r t y t a l k " a b o u t copyright. Instead, M a d i s o n a r g u e d for c o p y -
right in t e r m s of " p r o g r e s s , " " l e a r n i n g , " a n d o t h e r s u c h classic republi-
c a n virtues as literacy a n d a n i n f o r m e d citizenry. C o p y r i g h t fulfilled its
role for M a d i s o n b e c a u s e it l o o k e d f o r w a r d as a n e n c o u r a g e m e n t , n o t
b a c k w a r d as a r e w a r d . This fit w i t h the overall M a d i s o n i a n project for
the Constitution. If the federal g o v e r n m e n t w e r e to o p e r a t e as the n e x u s
of c o m p e t i n g interests, e a c h interest w o u l d n e e d to a p p r o a c h the p u b -
lic s p h e r e w i t h reliable i n f o r m a t i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d b e d e e m e d reli-
able o n l y if it w e r e subject to public debate. Ideas c o u l d b e j u d g e d b e n -
eficial o n l y if t h e y h a d s t o o d the tests of discourse a n d e x p e r i e n c e . 6

W h e n President G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n d e c l a r e d his s u p p o r t for the

C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1790, h e p r o c l a i m e d that copyright w o u l d stabilize
a n d enrich A m e r i c a n political culture b y " c o n v i n c i n g those w h o are en-
trusted w i t h public a d m i n i s t r a t i o n that e v e r y v a l u a b l e e n d of g o v e r n -
m e n t is b e s t a n s w e r e d b y the e n l i g h t e n e d c o n f i d e n c e of the p u b l i c ; a n d
b y teaching the p e o p l e t h e m s e l v e s to k n o w a n d v a l u e their o w n rights;
to discern a n d p r o v i d e against invasions of t h e m ; to distinguish b e -
t w e e n o p p r e s s i o n a n d the n e c e s s a r y exercise of lawful authority." In
other w o r d s , W a s h i n g t o n b e l i e v e d that o n l y t h r o u g h free a n d easy ac-
cess to i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d the p u b l i c e d u c a t e itself to b e strong e n o u g h
to resist t y r a n n y a n d m a i n t a i n a state that did n o t e x c e e d its charges.
C o p y r i g h t e n c o u r a g e d learning, so it w o u l d benefit the republic, W a s h -
ington reasoned. 7

T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n — a u t h o r , architect, slave o w n e r , l a n d o w n e r , a n d
the m o s t i m p o r t a n t A m e r i c a n interpreter of J o h n L o c k e — h a d n o p r o b -
l e m s w i t h the l a w s of the land protecting private property. Yet h e ex-
pressed s o m e serious m i s g i v i n g s a b o u t c o p y r i g h t s . T h e s e c o n c e r n s
w e r e b a s e d o n Jefferson's suspicion of concentrations of p o w e r a n d ar-
tificial m o n o p o l i e s . W h i l e in Paris in 1788, Jefferson w r o t e to M a d i s o n
that h e rejoiced at the n e w s that n i n e states h a d ratified the n e w C o n -
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 23

stitution. " I t is a g o o d c a n v a s s , " Jefferson w r o t e of M a d i s o n ' s w o r k , " o n

w h i c h s o m e strokes o n l y w a n t r e t o u c h i n g . " Primarily, Jefferson w a n t e d
a Bill of R i g h t s attached to the d o c u m e n t . B u t h e also desired a n explicit
prohibition against m o n o p o l i e s , i n c l u d i n g those limited a n d g r a n t e d b y
the Constitution: patents a n d c o p y r i g h t . W h i l e Jefferson a c k n o w l e d g e d
that a limited copyright c o u l d potentially e n c o u r a g e creativity, it h a d
not b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d . Therefore, Jefferson w r o t e , " t h e benefit of even
limited m o n o p o l i e s is too d o u b t f u l , to b e o p p o s e d to that of their gen-
eral s u p p r e s s i o n . " 8

T h e f o l l o w i n g s u m m e r , as C o n g r e s s w a s sifting t h r o u g h the pro-

posals that w o u l d f o r m the Bill of R i g h t s , Jefferson a g a i n w r o t e to M a d i -
son f r o m Paris. This t i m e Jefferson p r o p o s e d specific l a n g u a g e for an
a m e n d m e n t that w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d c o p y r i g h t s a n d patents, despite
his d o u b t s , b u t f o r b i d d e n a n y other t y p e of c o m m e r c i a l m o n o p o l y . " F o r
i n s t a n c e , " Jefferson w r o t e , " t h e following alterations a n d additions
w o u l d h a v e p l e a s e d m e : Article 9. M o n o p o l i e s m a y b e a l l o w e d to per-
sons for their o w n p r o d u c t i o n s in literature, a n d their o w n inventions
in the arts, for a term n o t e x c e e d i n g years, but for n o longer term,
a n d n o o t h e r p u r p o s e . " Jefferson lost this battle, as h e did m a n y battles
before 1 8 0 0 . 9

Significantly, the f o u n d e r s , w h e t h e r e n a m o r e d of the v i r t u o u s p o -

tential of copyright as W a s h i n g t o n w a s , e n c h a n t e d b y the m a c h i n e r y of
incentive as M a d i s o n w a s , or a l a r m e d b y the threat of c o n c e n t r a t e d
p o w e r as Jefferson w a s , did n o t a r g u e for c o p y r i g h t s or patents as
" p r o p e r t y . " C o p y r i g h t w a s a matter of policy, of a b a r g a i n a m o n g the
state, its a u t h o r s , a n d its citizens. Jefferson e v e n explicitly d i s m i s s e d a
p r o p e r t y m o d e l for copyright, a n d m a i n t a i n e d his s k e p t i c i s m a b o u t the
costs a n d benefits of c o p y r i g h t for m a n y y e a r s . Fearing, justifiably, that
copyright m i g h t e v e n t u a l l y e x p a n d to e n c o m p a s s i d e a protection, n o t
just expression protection, Jefferson w r o t e in 1813,

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of ex-
clusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the posses-
sion of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispose himself of it.

Jefferson then elucidated the f l a w in the political e c o n o m y of c o p y r i g h t

as property. U n l i k e tangible property, ideas a n d expressions are n o t
 24 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

susceptible to natural scarcity. A s Jefferson w r o t e of copyright, "Its p e -

culiar character, too, is that n o o n e possesses the less, b e c a u s e every
other possesses the w h o l e of it. H e w h o receives a n idea f r o m m e , re-
ceives instruction himself w i t h o u t lessening m i n e ; as h e w h o lights his
taper at m i n e , receives light w i t h o u t d a r k e n i n g m e . " Therefore, Jeffer-
s o n feared, the m o n o p o l i s t s c o u l d u s e their state-granted p o w e r to
strengthen their control over the f l o w of ideas a n d the u s e of expres-
sions. M o n o p o l i e s h a v e the p o w e r to enrich t h e m s e l v e s b y e v a d i n g the
limitations of the c o m p e t i t i v e m a r k e t p l a c e . Prices n e e d n o t fall w h e n
d e m a n d slackens, a n d d e m a n d n e e d n o t slacken if the m o n o p o l y m a k e s
itself essential to the e c o n o m y (like p e t r o l e u m o r c o m p u t e r operating
s y s t e m s ) . B u t to a c c o m p l i s h the task of bolstering the v a l u e of these m o -
n o p o l i e s , those w h o control c o p y r i g h t s w o u l d h a v e to create artificial
scarcity b y limiting access, fixing prices, restricting licensing, litigating,
a n d intimidating potential c o m p e t i t o r s , m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g the principles
of the l a w a n d c l a i m i n g a m e a s u r e of authenticity or r o m a n t i c original-
ity. But w h e n Jefferson w a r n e d of t h e s e potential n e g a t i v e externalities,
they w e r e m o r e t h a n a c e n t u r y away. E v e n in the early t w e n t i e t h cen-
tury, jurists c o n s i d e r e d Jefferson's w a r n i n g s , a n d skepticism a b o u t idea
protection kept m o n o p o l i s t s at bay. A s Justice L o u i s B r a n d e i s w r o t e in
a dissenting o p i n i o n in 1918, " T h e general rule of law is, that n o b l e s t of
h u m a n p r o d u c t i o n s — k n o w l e d g e , truths ascertained, c o n c e p t i o n s a n d
i d e a s — b e c o m e , after v o l u n t a r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n to o t h e r s , free as the air
to c o m m o n u s e . " B o t h Jefferson a n d B r a n d e i s dissented from the con-
ventional w i s d o m of their t i m e s , b u t nevertheless influenced the p h i -
l o s o p h y of copyright. So in the early republic a n d the first c e n t u r y of
A m e r i c a n legal history, c o p y r i g h t w a s a M a d i s o n i a n c o m p r o m i s e , a
n e c e s s a r y evil, a limited, artificial monopoly, n o t to b e g r a n t e d or ex-
p a n d e d lightly. 10

THE SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

A n a u t h o r c a n claim a copyright o n m a n y categories of creative expres-

sion, including literary w o r k s , audiovisual p r o d u c t i o n s , c o m p u t e r soft-
w a r e , g r a p h i c designs, m u s i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s , architectural p l a n s , a n d
s o u n d recordings. A c c o r d i n g to the C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1976, a w o r k is
protected in all m e d i a a n d for all possible derivative uses as s o o n as it
is fixed in a tangible m e d i u m of expression. This m e a n s that as s o o n as
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 25

a writer types a story o n a c o m p u t e r or typewriter, the w o r k carries the

protection of c o p y r i g h t law. A u t h o r s n e e d n o t register the w o r k w i t h
the C o p y r i g h t Office of the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s unless t h e y plan to pur-
sue legal action against s o m e o n e for violating the copyright.
T h e l a w specifically protects the " e x p r e s s i o n , " b u t n o t the facts or
ideas that underlie the expression. If o n e person w r i t e s a song that ex-
presses the idea that w o r l d p e a c e is desirable, that s o n g w r i t e r c a n n o t
prevent others from writing later songs, p l a y s , or n o v e l s that use, criti-
cize, or c h a m p i o n the s a m e idea. H o w e v e r , s u b s e q u e n t s o n g w r i t e r s
s h o u l d c h o o s e different lyrics, chord structures, a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s to
ensure t h e y do n o t t r a m p l e o n the original s o n g w r i t e r ' s copyright. In
another e x a m p l e — o n e that c o r r e s p o n d s to a case that r e a c h e d the U.S.
S u p r e m e C o u r t in 1 9 9 1 — i t is clear that copyright does n o t protect "in-
f o r m a t i o n . " O n e c o m p a n y p r o d u c e d a t e l e p h o n e directory for a n area.
A s e c o n d c o m p a n y u s e d that list of n a m e s , a d d r e s s e s , a n d p h o n e n u m -
bers, a l p h a b e t i z e d b y s u r n a m e , to p r o d u c e a s e c o n d a n d c o m p e t i n g di-
rectory. T h e first c o m p a n y s u e d , claiming c o p y r i g h t infringement.
H o w e v e r , the S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled that the 1976 statute a n d a c e n t u r y
of case l a w clearly stated that c o p y r i g h t protects o n l y original w o r k s of
a u t h o r s h i p , not data. A l p h a b e t i z a t i o n did n o t count as a n " o r i g i n a l "
m e t h o d of a r r a n g e m e n t . T h e r e is a strong p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d policy ar-
g u m e n t for leaving facts, data, a n d ideas u n p r o t e c t e d . T h e f r a m e r s of
the Constitution realized that for a d e m o c r a c y to function properly, cit-
izens s h o u l d h a v e e a s y access to i n f o r m a t i o n a n d should b e able to de-
b a t e a n d criticize w i t h o u t fear of l a w s u i t s . 11

For the s a m e reason, the f r a m e r s insisted that C o n g r e s s b e able to

grant c o p y r i g h t s for a limited t i m e only. T h e y asserted that after authors
h a d profited for a reasonable a m o u n t of time, their w o r k s s h o u l d b e -
long to the p u b l i c a n d contribute to the richness of the culture a n d pol-
itics of the nation. For m o r e t h a n 120 years, A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s c o u l d
enjoy copyright protection for m e r e 14-year t e r m s , or, after 1 8 3 1 , 28-
y e a r t e r m s w h i c h w e r e r e n e w a b l e for a n o t h e r 14 y e a r s . F r o m 1909
through 1978, the t e r m w a s e x t e n d e d to 28 years, r e n e w a b l e for a n o t h e r
28 y e a r s . All w o r k s created since 1978 fell u n d e r the 1976 revision,
w h i c h set the t e r m as the life of the a u t h o r p l u s 50 years, to benefit the
a u t h o r ' s kin. M o s t E u r o p e a n nations in 2001 grant copyrights for 70
years p a s t the d e a t h of the author, a n d the U.S. C o n g r e s s in 1998 ex-
t e n d e d U.S. c o p y r i g h t to m a t c h the E u r o p e a n term b y passing the
" S o n n y B o n o C o p y r i g h t Term E x t e n s i o n A c t . "
 26 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

Since 1891, the U n i t e d States h a s s i g n e d a series of treaties that

grant reciprocal copyright protection t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d , w i t h f e w
exceptions. T h e 1891 treaty w i t h the U n i t e d K i n g d o m protected A m e r -
ican a u t h o r s t h r o u g h o u t the E n g l i s h - r e a d i n g w o r l d , a n d protected
British a u t h o r s w i t h i n the U n i t e d States as well. Before this reciprocal
treaty, British b o o k s s o l d at a m u c h l o w e r price in the U n i t e d States than
A m e r i c a n - w r i t t e n b o o k s did, b u t British a u t h o r s s a w n o return from the
pirated editions. British a u t h o r s felt stiffed, a n d A m e r i c a n b o o k s could
not c o m p e t e w i t h c h e a p e r British w o r k s . L e v e l i n g the playing field b e n -
efited b o t h g r o u p s . 12

But recent efforts to standardize copyright protection around the

globe h a v e been more complicated. D e v e l o p i n g nations with w e a k cur-
rencies have s p a w n e d thriving black markets for pirated A m e r i c a n
films, c o m p a c t discs, a n d c o m p u t e r programs. In an e c o n o m y in w h i c h a
popular A m e r i c a n m u s i c c o m p a c t disc might cost a c o n s u m e r a w e e k ' s
w a g e s , pirated versions offer an affordable choice at a fraction of the
price. The U.S. g o v e r n m e n t — o n behalf of its software, music, a n d film
industries—has been pressuring developing nations to enforce interna-
tional treaties that protect copyrights. M e a n w h i l e , European nations a n d
m e d i a c o m p a n i e s have been urging the U.S. g o v e r n m e n t to a b a n d o n
m a n y of its copyright principles in favor of m a x i m u m protection for au-
thors a n d producers. E u r o p e a n nations h a v e consistently granted a
higher level of protection to authors and artists than A m e r i c a n laws
h a v e . M o s t European copyright traditions lack the notion that copyright
embodies a balance of interests that include the public as well as creators.

FAIR U S E A N D PRIVATE USE

H o w c a n a writer m a k e f u n of a television s h o w w i t h o u t b o r r o w i n g el-

e m e n t s of its creative expression? If the w r i t e r h a d to a s k p e r m i s s i o n
from the producers of the show, the p a r o d y w o u l d n e v e r occur. N o o n e
w o u l d grant p e r m i s s i o n to b e ridiculed. Yet p a r o d y is an i m p o r t a n t part
of o u r culture. W i t h o u t criticism a n d c o m m e n t , e v e n ridicule, d e m o c -
r a c y c a n n o t operate optimally. W i t h o u t referring to or freely q u o t i n g
from original w o r k s , n e w s p a p e r editorials, b o o k reviews, a n d satirical
television s h o w s c o u l d n o t do their w o r k . If students h a d to ask per-
m i s s i o n from p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n i e s for e v e r y q u o t a t i o n t h e y u s e d in
term p a p e r s , e d u c a t i o n w o u l d g r i n d to a halt.
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 27

This l i m i t e d f r e e d o m to q u o t e — " f a i r u s e " — i s a n e x e m p t i o n to

the b l a n k e t m o n o p o l y p r o t e c t i o n that artists a n d a u t h o r s enjoy. Fair
u s e e v o l v e d w i t h i n A m e r i c a n case l a w t h r o u g h o u t t h e n i n e t e e n t h and
t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , a n d w a s f i n a l l y c o d i f i e d in the C o p y r i g h t A c t of
1976. T h e l a w s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o w s users to m a k e c o p i e s of, q u o t e from,
a n d refer to c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s for t h e f o l l o w i n g p u r p o s e s : in c o n n e c -
tion w i t h criticism o r c o m m e n t o n t h e w o r k ; i n t h e c o u r s e of n e w s
r e p o r t i n g ; for t e a c h i n g o r c l a s s r o o m u s e ; or as p a r t of s c h o l a r s h i p or
research.
If a court is c h a r g e d w i t h d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a use of a c o p y r i g h t e d
w o r k is " f a i r " or not, the court m u s t c o n s i d e r the following issues: the
p u r p o s e or character of the u s e , s u c h as w h e t h e r it w a s m e a n t for c o m -
mercial or e d u c a t i o n a l use; the n a t u r e of the original, c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k ;
the a m o u n t of the c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k that w a s taken or u s e d in the sub-
sequent w o r k ; a n d the effect on the m a r k e t v a l u e of the original w o r k .
So, for e x a m p l e , if a teacher copies three p a g e s f r o m a 2 0 0 - p a g e b o o k
a n d passes t h e m out to s t u d e n t s , the t e a c h e r is c o v e r e d b y fair u s e . But
if that teacher p h o t o c o p i e s the entire b o o k a n d sells it to students at a
l o w e r cost than the original b o o k , that teacher has p r o b a b l y infringed
on the original copyright. M o r e often t h a n n o t , h o w e v e r , fair use is a
gray a n d s l o p p y c o n c e p t . C o m m e r c i a l l y p r o d u c e d parodies are fre-
quently c h a l l e n g e d e x a m p l e s of fair use. T h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s
recently g r a n t e d w i d e berth for parody, h o w e v e r , as a w a y of e n c o u r -
aging creative, free, a n d rich s p e e c h . 13

In addition to fair use, C o n g r e s s a n d the federal courts h a v e b e e n

unwilling to enforce c o p y r i g h t s in regard to private, n o n c o m m e r c i a l
uses. Generally, courts h a v e ruled that c o n s u m e r s are a l l o w e d to m a k e
copies of c o m p a c t discs for u s e in their o w n tape players, a n d m a y
record television b r o a d c a s t s for later h o m e v i e w i n g , as long as t h e y do
not sell the c o p i e s or d i s p l a y t h e m in a public setting that m i g h t dilute
the m a r k e t v a l u e of the original b r o a d c a s t . S o despite the w a r n i n g s that
a c c o m p a n y all b r o a d c a s t e d sporting events, m o s t private, n o n c o m m e r -
cial, o r e d u c a t i o n a l c o p y i n g of c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s falls u n d e r either the
fair use or private u s e e x e m p t i o n s to the l a w . 14

T h e C l i n t o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n h a s a g r e e d to s e v e r a l m u l t i n a t i o n a l
treaties that w o u l d r a d i c a l l y alter A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t law. O n e p r o -
v i s i o n w o u l d e s t a b l i s h a n e w t y p e of intellectual p r o p e r t y l a w to p r o -
tect d a t a , t r u m p i n g the S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l i n g that c o p y r i g h t specifi-
cally e x c l u d e s d a t a p r o t e c t i o n . A n o t h e r w o u l d i n t r o d u c e to U . S . l a w
 28 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

the c o n c e p t of a n a u t h o r ' s " m o r a l r i g h t s , " w h i c h w o u l d g i v e a u t h o r s

v e t o p o w e r o v e r p r o p o s e d p a r o d i e s of their w o r k . A third p r o v i s i o n
w o u l d result in a p r o h i b i t i o n o n a t t e m p t s to c i r c u m v e n t s o f t w a r e that
controls access to c o p y r i g h t e d m a t e r i a l . A l o n g w i t h t h e p r o p o s a l to
e x t e n d t h e d u r a t i o n of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n to s e v e n t y y e a r s p a s t the
life of t h e author, A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t in t h e t w e n t y - f i r s t c e n t u r y w i l l
w o r k v e r y differently t h a n it h a s for t h e p a s t t w o c e n t u r i e s .

THE IDEA/EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY

T h e t h e m a t i c spine of this w o r k is the a l a r m i n g a n d s t e a d y erosion of a

very valuable—yet theoretically suspect—legal construction: the
idea / expression dichotomy. A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w h a s clearly p r o -
tected o n l y specific expressions of ideas, yet a l l o w e d free rein for ideas
t h e m s e l v e s . D u r i n g Constitutional C o n v e n t i o n discussions o v e r federal
copyright protection, republican leaders r e c o g n i z e d that c o m p l e t e con-
trol o v e r b o o k s b y the British C r o w n a n d the Stationers' C o m p a n y h a d
limited public discourse a n d stifled criticism of royal a n d p a r l i a m e n -
tary policy. J a m e s M a d i s o n a n d others insisted that A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t
clearly protect distinct expressions of ideas for a limited t i m e , w h i l e al-
lowing others to freely u s e , criticize, a n d refer to the ideas that lay b e -
n e a t h the text. C o p y r i g h t w a s to b e a b a l a n c e b e t w e e n the interests of
the p r o d u c e r a n d the interests of the society of c o n s u m e r s , v o t e r s , a n d
readers. T h e i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y w a s to b e at the c r u x of this
b a l a n c e . A s Melville N i m m e r , the author of the definitive c o p y r i g h t
textbook, w r o t e , " [ T ] h e a r e n a of public debate w o u l d b e quiet, i n d e e d ,
if a politician c o u l d copyright his s p e e c h e s or a p h i l o s o p h e r his treatises
a n d t h u s obtain a m o n o p o l y on the ideas t h e y c o n t a i n e d . " 15

T h e d i c h o t o m y is n o t m e r e l y a given. It h a s m a n y c o m p l i c a t i o n s
a n d flaws. B u t it is best explained t h r o u g h textual e x a m p l e s . C o n s i d e r
the specific string of text: " A n d h e said, Take n o w thy son, thine only
s o n Isaac, w h o m t h o u lovest, a n d get thee into the l a n d of M o r i a h ; a n d
offer h i m there for a b u r n t offering u p o n o n e of the m o u n t a i n s w h i c h I
will tell thee o f . " 1 6
T h e s a m e u n d e r l y i n g i d e a c o u l d b e expressed as:
" O h , G o d said to A b r a h a m kill m e a son. A b e said, ' m a n , y o u m u s t b e
putting m e o n . ' " 1 7
W h i l e the first expression is unprotectable u n d e r
A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w b e c a u s e the K i n g J a m e s Version of the O l d Tes-
t a m e n t is in the p u b l i c d o m a i n , the s e c o n d e x p r e s s i o n is quite protected.
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 29

T h e s e c o n d expression, w r i t t e n b y B o b D y l a n in 1965, is c o n s i d e r e d an
" o r i g i n a l " expression of a v e r y old idea. Q u o t i n g the lyric in a n o t h e r
w o r k m i g h t require p e r m i s s i o n a n d p e r h a p s p a y m e n t of a fee. N o n e t h e -
less, a future s o n g w r i t e r should b e fairly sure s h e m a y legally refer to
the A b r a h a m story in other w o r d s w i t h o u t fear of a lawsuit from Bob
D y l a n o r his licensing organization, the A m e r i c a n Society of C o m -
p o s e r s , A u t h o r s , a n d Publishers ( A S C A P ) .
E v e r y c o p y r i g h t t e x t b o o k a n d a u t h o r s ' g u i d e m e n t i o n s the i d e a /
expression dichotomy, b u t f e w fully explore it as a c o m p l i c a t e d a n d
t r o u b l e s o m e concept. In the w i d e l y u s e d Kirsch's Handbook of Publishing
Law for Authors, Publishers, Editors, and Agents, copyright a t t o r n e y and
a u t h o r J o n a t h a n Kirsch declares in the s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h of his first
chapter that ideas are c o m m o d i t i e s w o r t h trying to protect, b u t the l a w
does n o t go far e n o u g h to protect t h e m . H e explains that traditional
copyright l a w specifically excludes idea protection, b u t advises pro-
spective a u t h o r s that t h e y m a y use contract l a w to protect their submit-
ted i d e a s . 18

Since the 1976 c o p y r i g h t revisions, the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y

has b e e n part of the federal statute. T h e text of section 102 (b) of the
copyright l a w reads: " I n n o case does c o p y r i g h t protection for a n origi-
nal w o r k of authorship e x t e n d to a n y idea, p r o c e d u r e , p r o c e s s , system,
m e t h o d of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in w h i c h it is described, e x p l a i n e d , illustrated, or e m b o d i e d in
such w o r k . " T h e H o u s e Report from the 1976 bill states: " C o p y r i g h t
does n o t p r e c l u d e others f r o m using the ideas or i n f o r m a t i o n revealed
b y the a u t h o r ' s w o r k . . . . Section 102 (b) in n o w a y enlarges o r contracts
the s c o p e of c o p y r i g h t protection u n d e r the present law. Its p u r p o s e
is to restate, in the context of the n e w single Federal s y s t e m of c o p y -
right, that the basic d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n expression a n d idea r e m a i n s
unchanged." 19

In other w o r d s , the 1976 revision codified a principle that h a d de-

v e l o p e d t h r o u g h the case l a w o v e r the c o u r s e of m o r e than a century.
For instance, in 1879, a federal court ruled in the case of Baker v. Selden
that just b e c a u s e a n 1859 b o o k entitled Selden s Condensed Ledger, or
Bookkeeping Simplified described a n e w a n d detailed m e t h o d of b o o k -
k e e p i n g , Selden c o u l d exert n o control over a later publication of a b o o k
that s u m m a r i z e d the d o u b l e - e n t r y s y s t e m a n d p r o v i d e d e x a m p l e s of
c o l u m n e d f o r m s o n e c o u l d u s e w i t h the s y s t e m . In d e n y i n g that B a k e r
h a d violated S e l d e n ' s copyright, Justice B r a d l e y ruled that " t h e r e is a
 30 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

clear distinction b e t w e e n the b o o k , as such, a n d the art w h i c h it is in-

tended to illustrate. . . . To give to the author of the b o o k a n exclusive
p r o p e r t y in the art described therein, w h e n n o e x a m i n a t i o n of its n o v -
elty h a s ever b e e n officially m a d e , w o u l d b e a surprise a n d a fraud u p o n
the p u b l i c . " 2 0

A l t h o u g h the d i c h o t o m y h a s e r o d e d in practice t h r o u g h the c o u r s e

of the t w e n t i e t h century, s o m e recent legal rulings still i n v o k e it, a n d
thus p r e s e r v e it. For e x a m p l e , in a 1991 decision in Fez'sr Publications, Inc.
v. Rural Telephone Service, the U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled that the infor-
m a t i o n in a t e l e p h o n e directory w a s n o t in itself protectable u n d e r
copyright, b e c a u s e the n a m e s , addresses, a n d p h o n e n u m b e r s represent
the p u r e s t e x p r e s s i o n of facts or ideas, a n d m e r e collection a n d alpha-
betization do n o t m e e t the s t a n d a r d s of " o r i g i n a l i t y " that the l a w re-
quires to d e s e r v e protection. Justice S a n d r a D a y O ' C o n n o r w r o t e : " T h i s
case c o n c e r n s the interaction of t w o well-established propositions. T h e
first is that facts are n o t c o p y r i g h t a b l e ; the other, that c o m p i l a t i o n s of
facts g e n e r a l l y are. T h a t there can b e n o valid copyright in facts is uni-
versally u n d e r s t o o d . T h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l a x i o m of copyright l a w is
that ' n o a u t h o r m a y c o p y r i g h t his ideas or the facts h e n a r r a t e s . ' " 21

COMPLICATING THE DICHOTOMY

A l a s , in b o t h t h e o r y a n d practice, the idea / expression d i c h o t o m y is n o t

as s i m p l e as that. O n c e again, c o n s i d e r a n Old Testament p a s s a g e : " A n d
C a i n talked w i t h A b e l his brother: a n d it c a m e to pass, w h e n t h e y w e r e
in the field, that C a i n rose u p against A b e l his brother, a n d s l e w h i m . " 2 2

T h e last part of this p a s s a g e can b e e x p r e s s e d in the g r a m m a t i c a l l y s i m -

pler version: " C a i n killed A b e l . " It c a n also take the passive form: " A b e l
w a s killed b y C a i n . " T h e verb c o u l d b e m o r e specific: " C a i n c h o k e d
A b e l until h e d i e d . " D o these four sentences " m e a n " the s a m e thing?
M o s t of the t i m e , certainly. B u t the f o u r t h sentence c o u l d b e m i s r e a d as
m e a n i n g that C a i n c o n t i n u e d to c h o k e A b e l until C a i n h i m s e l f died. T h e
writer of this s e n t e n c e m i g h t h a v e m e a n t the fourth s e n t e n c e to m e a n
the s a m e t h i n g as " C a i n killed A b e l , " b u t a n a u d i e n c e u n e q u i p p e d with
biblical or cultural context m i g h t miss the i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g if it incor-
rectly g u e s s e d the a n t e c e d e n t to the p r o n o u n he.
T h e gap b e t w e e n w h a t w a s originally i n t e n d e d a n d w h a t is read or
p e r c e i v e d — t h e slipperiness of m e a n i n g — h a s for centuries c o n s u m e d
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 31

the interest of linguistic a n d literary thinkers. W h e r e does " m e a n i n g "

c o m e f r o m ? It m i g h t c o m e from its source, the writer, speaker, d r u m -
mer, dancer, or singer. It m i g h t b e g e n e r a t e d entirely w i t h i n the audi-
ence, either individually or collectively. T h e s e questions are painfully
relevant to an e x a m i n a t i o n of the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy. If there is
a clear distinction b e t w e e n the expression a n d the ideas that undergird
that expression, then the d i c h o t o m y m a k e s sense u n d e r all circum-
stances, a n d w e c a n p r o c e e d w i t h c o n f i d e n c e . H o w e v e r , m u c h recent
theoretical w o r k h a s c o m p l i c a t e d this c o m m o n s e n s e notion. For s o m e ,
the s p a c e b e t w e e n w h a t w e m i g h t consider ideas (or " o b j e c t s " in gen-
eral) a n d their linguistic e x p r e s s i o n s has collapsed. M a y b e w e live in a
u n i v e r s e of l a n g u a g e a n d i m a g e s , a n d n o t h i n g else. P e r h a p s w e as a u -
dience m e m b e r s h a v e s u c h c o m p l e t e control over the construction of
m e a n i n g that the text itself is e v e r y t h i n g a n d the intent of the a u t h o r
m e a n s n o t h i n g . T h e v e r y u n d e r l y i n g idea of a n i n d e p e n d e n t " u n d e r l y -
ing i d e a " m i g h t b e a m y t h or a n i l l u s i o n . 23

In the s e n t e n c e " C a i n killed A b e l , " w e find several signs that w e can

a s s u m e carry m e a n i n g . Before w e go a b o u t interpreting the s e n t e n c e as
a w h o l e , w e u n d e r s t a n d " C a i n " as a sign that signifies a m a n , p e r h a p s
the s o n of A d a m a n d E v e . We u n d e r s t a n d " A b e l " as a sign representing
a m a n , a n o t h e r s o n of A d a m a n d E v e . W e i m p a r t (or extract) m e a n i n g
to the sign " k i l l e d " as the preterit tense of the verb to kill. W e a s s u m e
that our a u d i e n c e s share a set of definitions, s y s t e m s of g r a m m a r , a n un-
d e r s t a n d i n g of the habit of n a m i n g h u m a n b e i n g s a n d of the v a r i o u s ac-
tions associated w i t h killing a n d dying. Therefore, w e a s s u m e o u r a u -
diences c a n agree o n basic m e a n i n g s . Still, w e c a n i m a g i n e contextual
complications. W h a t if the reader a s s u m e d that C a i n w a s instead a
stand-up c o m i c , not the s o n of A d a m ? T h e n the v e r b " k i l l e d " takes on
a w h o l e different, a n d b e n i g n , m e a n i n g . A b e l w o u l d b e the object of en-
tertainment, n o t v i o l e n c e . But u n d e r m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , to m o s t read-
ers, the s e n t e n c e " C a i n killed A b e l " carries a fairly stable m e a n i n g .
O n e of the reasons w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d the specific expression " C a i n
killed A b e l " as just o n e of several w a y s to express the i d e a of a h u m a n
b e i n g n a m e d C a i n killing a h u m a n b e i n g n a m e d A b e l is that w e can
form pictures in o u r h e a d s of p e o p l e doing things. But n o t all signs h a v e
referential " s i g n i f i e d s , " or sources, in the real w o r l d . C o n s i d e r this sen-
tence from the U.S. D e c l a r a t i o n of I n d e p e n d e n c e , " W e h o l d these truths
to b e self-evident, that all m e n are created e q u a l . " 2 4
W e can't literally
" h o l d t r u t h s " in o u r h a n d s . W h i l e w e c a n picture " m e n " in o u r h e a d s ,
 32 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

w e c a n n o t picture " e q u a l , " e x c e p t w i t h i n a n o t h e r set of s y m b o l s (signs),

s u c h as a b l i n d f o l d e d w o m a n h o l d i n g a scale. O f the list of signs in this
sentence, the t w o m o s t troubling for o u r analysis are " t r u t h s " a n d
" e q u a l . " C a n w e u n d e r s t a n d either of these t e r m s as a n y t h i n g but the
terms t h e m s e l v e s ? W e c o u l d define t h e m as " n o t their o p p o s i t e s , " b u t
that does n o t get u s a n y farther, just a r o u n d a circle. T h a t ' s not to say
that w e c a n n o t create w o r k i n g definitions of either " t r u t h " or " e q u a l . "
We can a n d d o all the t i m e . H o w e v e r , in all of t h o s e definitions, the o p -
erative n o u n s a n d v e r b s are a l w a y s just as n e b u l o u s . " T r u t h " is an idea,
a n d o n l y a n idea. It is not a n object or a n action. " E q u a l " is the adjecti-
val f o r m of the n o u n equality a n d the verb equate. It is just as absent from
our e x p e r i e n c e w h e n it is u s e d as a h u m a n trait, as o p p o s e d to a m a t h -
ematical c o n c e p t or a n act associated w i t h m e a s u r e m e n t a n d c o m m e r c e .
Is there a n u n d e r l y i n g i d e a to the expression " W e h o l d these truths
to b e self evident, that all m e n are created e q u a l , " w h e n that expression
is m e r e l y a collection of ideas itself? H o w c a n there b e a n i d e a / e x p r e s -
sion d i c h o t o m y if w e are considering o n l y ideas in the first p l a c e ? Is an
idea a n y t h i n g m o r e t h a n its expression? If there is n o distinction b e -
t w e e n that specific expression a n d the ideas it expresses, then the dis-
tinction b e c o m e s m e a n i n g l e s s . W h e n w e realize that the ideas that in-
spired Jefferson's expression h a d v e r y different m e a n i n g s in 1776 than
in 1 9 9 8 — J e f f e r s o n did n o t intend his statement to i n c l u d e w o m e n or
n o n w h i t e s , for e x a m p l e — w e threaten to h a v e o u r c o n f i d e n c e in m e a n -
ing e r o d e from u n d e r u s . H a v e w e s t u m b l e d u p o n a fault that renders
the d i c h o t o m y irrelevant to discussions of the role of c o p y r i g h t in d e m -
ocratic speech?
N o , w e h a v e just s t u m b l e d u p o n a n o t h e r e x a m p l e of the impreci-
sion of l a n g u a g e a n d the slipperiness of m e a n i n g , w h i c h is v e r y differ-
ent f r o m asserting the irrelevance or impossibility of m e a n i n g . It is
n o t h i n g p r o f o u n d , just interesting. In fact, w e c a n a n d do u n d e r s t a n d
b o t h " t r u t h " a n d " e q u a l " long before w e get to the D e c l a r a t i o n of I n d e -
p e n d e n c e . B o t h t e r m s are in c o m m o n u s a g e o n Sesame Street, for in-
stance. W e as a c o m m u n i t y of readers carry a r o u n d w i t h us s o m e idea
of the m e a n i n g of these t w o t e r m s . We c a n select different t e r m s to de-
scribe b o t h Jefferson's original m e a n i n g a n d o u r recent reinterpreta-
tions of the statement. W h i l e e v e r y s e n t e n c e can h a v e several m e a n i n g s
extracted b y different c o m m u n i t i e s of r e a d e r s , e v e r y u n d e r l y i n g idea
c a n b e e x p r e s s e d i n several distinct w a y s . B e c a u s e of this, w e c a n e m -
pirically s h o w that there are a priori ideas that u n d e r g i r d this specific
 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE 33

expression b y c h o o s i n g a different s e n t e n c e structure or a set of syn-

o n y m s to do the s a m e w o r k . For e x a m p l e : " E v e r y h u m a n b e i n g is con-
sidered to b e w o r t h the s a m e as e v e r y other h u m a n b e i n g . " It m a y lack
the poetic c a d e n c e , the rhetorical p o w e r , a n d the e c o n o m y of T h o m a s
Jefferson's version, b u t it expresses the s a m e idea to a certain c o m m u -
nity of interpreters. We c a n e v e n render the ideas that underlie the ex-
pression " a l l m e n are created e q u a l " in digital form, a series of ones and
zeros that constitute the simplest possible g r a m m a r . Therefore, in prac-
tice a n d u n d e r m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y that
is s o essential to protecting specific texts w h i l e a l l o w i n g free a n d rich
s p e e c h c a n often w o r k , e v e n if it d o e s n ' t a l w a y s w o r k .
This distinction b e t w e e n specific e x p r e s s i o n s a n d u n d e r l y i n g ideas
is the m o s t w i d e l y m i s u n d e r s t o o d aspect of copyright law. J o u r n a l -
ists, c o n s u m e r s , writers, a n d artists often feel c o n s t r a i n e d in w h a t they
m a y express or create if a n o t h e r h a s a l r e a d y tilled that intellectual soil.
H e a d l i n e s frequently claim that " p l a g i a r i s m s u i t s " h a v e b e e n filed
w h e n t h e y are in fact c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t claims. Plagiarism is n o t
in itself a c r i m e or a n actionable civil offense u n d e r the principles of
copyright law. P l a g i a r i s m is a n ethical a n d professional issue, n o t a
legal o n e . T h e general p u b l i c is often c o n f u s e d a b o u t this distinction b e -
cause the c o n c e p t is so m u d d l e d o r i g n o r e d w i t h i n b o t h the p o p u l a r and
legal discourses of intellectual property. F o r instance, a 1998 cover story
in T h e Atlantic Monthly that described s o m e current debates over c o p y -
right protection carried the u n f o r t u n a t e title " W h o Will O w n Your N e x t
G o o d I d e a ? " In fact, a c c o r d i n g to traditional tenets of the law, w e all
w o u l d . But, as s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s will show, the distinction h a s b e e n
steadily collapsing for a century, so p e r h a p s the article w a s n o t so mis-
leading after a l l . 25

T h e r e is, in fact, a g r o w i n g b o d y of l a w called " i d e a p r o t e c t i o n , " b u t

m u c h of it lies outside copyright cases a n d statutes. It is a c o m p l e x w e b
of trade secret l a w s , unfair c o m p e t i t i o n l a w s , contractual obligations,
a n d industry traditions. I d e a protection e v o l v e d b e c a u s e c o p y r i g h t law
explicitly denies protection for ideas a n d reserves it for expressions. B u t
habits of the literary, film, m u s i c , a n d c o m p u t e r industries, as w e l l as
the pernicious influence of E u r o p e a n " m o r a l r i g h t s " t h o u g h t a n d the
p e r v a s i v e u s e of " p r o p e r t y " discourse, h a v e created the possibility of
using copyright l a w to limit the u s e a n d distribution of ideas, instead
of just expressions of t h o s e ideas. So w h e n A r t B u c h w a l d got offended
that P a r a m o u n t released a hit m o t i o n picture that slightly r e s e m b l e d a
 34 C O P Y R I G H T A N D A M E R I C A N CULTURE

treatment h e h a d s u b m i t t e d to the s a m e s t u d i o , h e s u e d a n d w o n — b u t
not b a s e d o n c o p y r i g h t principles. B u c h w a l d a r g u e d that the studio h a d
violated a contract w i t h h i m . B u c h w a l d ' s v i c t o r y in his suit o n b e h a l f of
the idea h e s u b m i t t e d for a n E d d i e M u r p h y film that ultimately b e c a m e
Coming to America (1989) has thrust idea protection into the public con-
sciousness, but w i t h little subtle analysis. T h e B u c h w a l d case received
substantial m e d i a c o v e r a g e , b u t w a s a l m o s t a l w a y s referred to as a
" p l a g i a r i s m s u i t . " Besides the fact that " p l a g i a r i s m " is n o t a legal cause
of action, m o s t press a c c o u n t s i g n o r e d the fact that B u c h w a l d ' s attor-
n e y s k n e w that a c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t suit w o u l d b e h a r d to w i n on
idea protection g r o u n d s . So instead, t h e y s u e d in a California state court
charging a violation of contract, a n d w o n . T h e B u c h w a l d trial h a s h a d a
w i d e r l e g a c y t h a n his effort to clean u p H o l l y w o o d b u s i n e s s a n d ac-
c o u n t i n g practices. T h e c o v e r a g e of that case h a s injured the c a u s e of
" t h i n " c o p y r i g h t protection. W h e n v e r y different w o r d s a n d p h r a s e s
s u c h as " i d e a t h e f t , " " c o p y r i g h t v i o l a t i o n , " " a p p r o p r i a t i o n , " a n d " p l a -
g i a r i s m " are u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y in the p u b l i c discourse s u r r o u n d i n g
the c o m m e r c e of creativity, the idea-expression d i c h o t o m y b e c o m e s
harder to define, h a r d e r to identify, a n d therefore harder to d e f e n d . 26
 2

Mark Twain and the History of

Literary Copyright

ON F R I D A Y , D E C E M B E R 7, 1906, S e n a t o r Alfred Kittredge of S o u t h

D a k o t a called Mr. S a m u e l L a n g h o r n e C l e m e n s to the d a r k o a k w i t n e s s
table in the C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e a d i n g R o o m of the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . A
c r o w d h a d g a t h e r e d , larger t h a n those to w h i c h the joint C o m m i t t e e on
Patents w a s a c c u s t o m e d . P e o p l e c a m e to h e a r A m e r i c a ' s favorite a u t h o r
a n d h u m o r i s t a s s u m e his public character of M a r k Twain a n d give his
thoughts o n the latest copyright revision bill. D i s t i n g u i s h e d a n d p o p u -
lar figures s u c h as T h o m a s N e l s o n P a g e a n d Rev. E d w a r d Everett Hale
h a d w a r m e d u p the c r o w d for Twain. A s the seventy-one-year-old
writer a p p r o a c h e d his chair to face the c o m m i t t e e , h e r e m o v e d his over-
coat. T h e c r o w d g a s p e d . In the m i d d l e of a Victorian winter, the icono-
clast h a d d o n n e d a c r e a m - c o l o r e d flannel suit. A s W i l l i a m D e a n H o w -
ells described the incident, " N o t h i n g c o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e dramatic
than the gesture w i t h w h i c h h e flung off his long loose overcoat, and
stood forth in w h i t e from his feet to the c r o w n of his silvery h e a d . " 1

" T h i s is a u n i f o r m , " T w a i n t o l d r e p o r t e r s b e f o r e testifying. " I t is

the u n i f o r m o f t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of P u r i t y a n d P e r f e c t i o n , of
w h i c h I a m p r e s i d e n t , s e c r e t a r y a n d treasurer, a n d t h e o n l y m a n in
the U n i t e d States e l i g i b l e to m e m b e r s h i p . " T h e suit, w h i c h h e intro-
2

d u c e d at the h e a r i n g , b e c a m e part of his p u b l i c p e r s o n a over t h e last

f o u r y e a r s of his life. T w a i n w a s s o s t r o n g l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a w h i t e
suit that a rare T w a i n i m p e r s o n a t o r in 2 0 0 1 w o u l d d a r e p e r f o r m w i t h -
out w e a r i n g o n e .
T h e w o r l d r e m e m b e r s the w h i t e suit better than w h a t Twain said in
the h e a r i n g . B u t his a r g u m e n t s a n d his w a y of a s s u m i n g the imperial
voice of A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s h i p h a v e h a d a m u c h deeper effect o n the
laws a n d c u s t o m s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s industries across the g l o b e . His
t e s t i m o n y w a s prescient a n d influential. C o n g r e s s did not p a s s the
copyright bill that session b u t did p a s s a m o r e m o d e r a t e v e r s i o n three

35
 36 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

years later that b e c a m e the l a w u n d e r w h i c h p u b l i s h e r s , record c o m p a -

nies, a n d e v e n early c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m e r s o p e r a t e d t h r o u g h the n e x t
s e v e n t y y e a r s . W h e n C o n g r e s s revised the l a w a g a i n in 1976, it a d o p t e d
m a n y of T w a i n ' s v i e w s a n d g a v e h i m w h a t h e h a d a s k e d for seventy
years before: protection that lasts fifty y e a r s after the d e a t h of the a u -
thor. Since 1976, U n i t e d States courts a n d international negotiators h a v e
m o v e d A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w e v e n closer to T w a i n ' s w i s h e s .
T w a i n ' s 1906 public p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o n c o p y r i g h t w e r e carefully
crafted to p e r s u a d e a n A m e r i c a n public a n d a C o n g r e s s that did n o t
share his v i e w s o n a u t h o r s h i p a n d literary " p r o p e r t y . " T h r o u g h his
p u b l i c writings a n d testimony, h e s u b v e r t e d , u p e n d e d , a n d twisted the
d o m i n a n t A m e r i c a n discourses of p o l i c y m a k i n g : e m p i r i c i s m , p r a g m a -
tism, a n d utilitarianism. Twain publicly w r o t e a n d s p o k e w i t h a strong
A m e r i c a n accent in t e r m s that p r a g m a t i s t s a n d utilitarians c o u l d grasp.
Yet h e w a s quite E u r o p e a n o n issues of literary p r o p e r t y a n d political
philosophy. H e h a d i m m e r s e d h i m s e l f in a C o n t i n e n t a l v a l u e s y s t e m of
a u t h o r s h i p , yet A m e r i c a n s t h o u g h t h e w a s o n e of their o w n . A l m o s t a
c e n t u r y after h e took his p u b l i c stand, A m e r i c a n copyright l a w h a s fi-
nally started to reflect M a r k Twain's vision of w h a t it s h o u l d b e . B u t
A m e r i c a n s are n o t necessarily better off for it.
T w a i n ' s o p i n i o n s a b o u t c o p y r i g h t e v o l v e d over the course of his
professional lifetime. E a r l y in his career, Twain enjoyed that h e could
p u r c h a s e h i g h - q u a l i t y v o l u m e s of British literature a n d e s s a y s at a
m u c h lower price t h a n in E n g l a n d . T h e U n i t e d States, b y virtue of n o t
signing a reciprocal copyright treaty w i t h the U n i t e d K i n g d o m , w a s o n e
m a s s i v e public d o m a i n for British w o r k s . C h e a p b o o k s e n c o u r a g e d lit-
eracy, according to the c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s d o m , a n d Twain for the m o s t
part a d h e r e d to that w i s d o m . Later in his career, after seeing his b o o k s
ruthlessly pirated b y b o t h British a n d C a n a d i a n publishers, a n d after
considering the deleterious effects of the d o m i n a n c e of British w o r k s in
A m e r i c a n h o m e s , s c h o o l s , libraries, a n d literary circles, T w a i n decided
h e w a s not so e n a m o r e d of c h e a p b o o k s , w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n b y
h i m or b y Charles D i c k e n s . Still, at the a p e x of his writing career, the
1880s, h e w a s a copyright realist, c o n c e r n e d w i t h b a l a n c e a n d fairness,
b u t k e e n l y a w a r e of the f r e e d o m the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y af-
forded a u t h o r s . After the U n i t e d States a g r e e d to a n international c o p y -
right treaty in 1 8 9 1 , Twain c o n c e n t r a t e d his legal studies o n the differ-
ences in a u t h o r s ' rights a n d status b e t w e e n E u r o p e a n d the U n i t e d
States. So f r o m a b o u t 1898 until the e n d of his life in 1910, Twain en-
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 37

d o r s e d m a x i m u m protection for a u t h o r s , the thickest possible c o p y -

right, at the e x p e n s e of b o t h readers a n d publishers.
A s M a r k Twain w e n t , s o w e n t the nation. F r o m before the R e v o l u -
tion, A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w expressed tensions b e t w e e n republican
a n d populist political visions. B u t b y early in the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' second
century, political a n d literary leaders h a d m o v e d a w a y f r o m populist
literary ideals w h e n it c a m e to copyright policy. C o p y r i g h t b y the e n d
of M a r k Twain's life at the d a w n of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w a s the site of
tensions b e t w e e n r e p u b l i c a n ideals a n d proprietary interests. This dy-
n a m i c tension reinforced a delicate a n d p o w e r f u l l y successful balance
in c o p y r i g h t a n d the culture industries right t h r o u g h m o s t of the twen-
tieth century. But at the b e g i n n i n g of the twentieth-first century, the re-
p u b l i c a n roots of copyright are a l m o s t forgotten in public discussions of
copyright a n d virtually absent from the c o n c e r n s of policy m a k e r s . So
to rehistoricize a n d reinvigorate the debate, w e m u s t e x a m i n e the birth
of c o p y r i g h t in the British Isle.

C O P Y R I G H T AS CENSORSHIP

T h e earliest British c o p y r i g h t l a w s w e r e i n s t r u m e n t s of c e n s o r s h i p . 3

In 1557, the C a t h o l i c Q u e e n M a r y T u d o r c a p p e d off a 1 2 0 - y e a r m o -

n a r c h a l s t r u g g l e to c e n s o r p r i n t i n g p r e s s e s in E n g l a n d b y issuing a
c h a r t e r to the S t a t i o n e r s ' C o m p a n y , a g u i l d of p r i n t e r s . O n l y m e m b e r s
of t h e c o m p a n y c o u l d l e g a l l y p r o d u c e b o o k s . T h e o n l y b o o k s t h e y
would print were approved b y the Crown. The c o m p a n y was author-
i z e d to c o n f i s c a t e u n s a n c t i o n e d b o o k s . It w a s a s w e e t deal f o r the
p u b l i s h e r s . T h e y got e x c l u s i v i t y — m o n o p o l y p o w e r to p r i n t a n d dis-
tribute specific w o r k s — t h e f u n c t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n to c o p y r i g h t . T h e
o n l y price t h e y p a i d w a s r e l i n q u i s h i n g t h e f r e e d o m to print d i s a g r e e -
able or d i s s e n t i n g t e x t s . W h i l e p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t h o r s h a d n o d e c l a r e d
s t a n d i n g b e f o r e t h e l a w a c c o r d i n g to t h e p r a c t i c e s of the S t a t i o n e r s '
C o m p a n y , a u t h o r s c e r t a i n l y p l a y e d a n e c o n o m i c role i n t h e b o o k m a k -
ing p r o c e s s . T h e printers p a i d a u t h o r s f o r their m a n u s c r i p t s a n d in re-
t u r n r e c e i v e d e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s to t h e m . T h e a u t h o r s not o n l y r e c e i v e d
p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d s t a n d i n g t h r o u g h the b o o k m a k i n g
p r o c e s s ; t h e y c o u l d b e a s s u r e d that their w o r k s w o u l d n o t b e pirated
or m i s r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e m a r k e t . To e a r n the e x c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t pro-
t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d b y the S t a t i o n e r s ' C o m p a n y charter, a p u b l i s h e r h a d
 38 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

to receive w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m the author. T h e r e f o r e , t h e British

p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t h o r did h a v e de facto s t a n d i n g a n d r e c o g n i t i o n in the
p r o c e s s as e a r l y as the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . 4

T h e o p e r a t i o n of the S t a t i o n e r s ' C o m p a n y d e m o n s t r a t e s t w o fun-

d a m e n t a l principles of original E n g l i s h c o p y r i g h t law. First, it e m -
anated from a g o v e r n m e n t a l l y decreed statute, n o t s o m e revealed nat-
ural right of authors. S e c o n d , it g r a n t e d a monopoly, w h i c h m e a n t a
publisher c o u l d set a price for a b o o k w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g m a r k e t pres-
sures. Several s u c c e e d i n g m o n a r c h s , t w o L o r d Protectors, a n d m a n y
P a r l i a m e n t s c o n t i n u e d the s y s t e m w i t h s o m e minor revisions for the
following 137 y e a r s . 5

T h e C r o w n e x t e n d e d its authority over printers t h r o u g h the restric-

tive licensing s y s t e m to the A m e r i c a n colonies as w e l l . W h i l e o n l y o n e
A m e r i c a n printer clashed directly w i t h the British m o n a r c h , colonial
g o v e r n o r s chilled colonial presses b y selectively issuing m o n o p o l y li-
censes. T h e G e n e r a l C o u r t of M a s s a c h u s e t t s issued a n order in 1662 for-
b i d d i n g a n y printer from publishing a n y t h i n g w i t h o u t a license. T h e
order sprang directly f r o m fears that religious dissenters m i g h t incur
royal displeasure b y using colonial presses to s p r e a d u n r e s t . 6

In 1673, M a s s a c h u s e t t s p a s s e d the first colonial c o p y r i g h t statute.

W h i l e A m e r i c a n p u b l i s h e r s c o u l d h a v e c l a i m e d p r o t e c t i o n for their m o -
nopolies t h r o u g h British law, e n f o r c e m e n t w a s easier w i t h local author-
ity. A s w i t h all c o p y r i g h t efforts before 1709, the 1673 M a s s a c h u s e t t s act
did n o t m e n t i o n the legal standing of a u t h o r s , o n l y publishers. N o other
colonies took u p the c o p y r i g h t effort. Basically, p i r a c y w a s n o t a p r o b -
lem in the colonies. P u b l i s h e r s c o l l u d e d out of a s e n s e of m u t u a l obli-
gation, o r — m o r e l i k e l y — o u t of a desire to k e e p prices artificially high
t h r o u g h a n i n f o r m a l cartel. M o s t significantly, since n o colonial p u b -
lisher c o u l d afford to a n g e r the g o v e r n o r or king, f e w p u b l i s h e r s w e r e
willing to p u b l i s h a n y t h i n g w i t h o u t the g u a r a n t e e of a m o n o p o l y
through licensing. 7

O n e s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y colonial publisher did stand u p to the li-

censing s y s t e m . In 1680, a printer n a m e d William N u t h e a d , s p o n s o r e d
b y a g e n t l e m a n n a m e d J o h n Buckner, established a print s h o p in J a m e s -
t o w n , Virginia. It did n o t last long. T h e colonial g o v e r n m e n t h a d v o i c e d
strong opposition to the practice of u n l i c e n c e d printing. T h e records of
the l a w s of colonial Virginia report this item: " F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1682, J o h n
B u c k n e r called before Lord C u l p e p p e r a n d his council for printing the
laws of 1680, w i t h o u t his excellency's license, a n d h e a n d the printer or-
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 39

dered to enter into b o n d in £100 not to p r i n t a n y t h i n g thereafter, until

his majesty's p l e a s u r e s h o u l d b e k n o w n . " N u t h e a d s o o n m o v e d his
press to St. M a r y ' s City, M a r y l a n d . 8

A m e r i c a n colonial g o v e r n o r s w e r e reacting to the political t u r m o i l

of s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n g l a n d . T h e y did not w a n t the infection of dis-
sent to s p r e a d across the Atlantic. T h e m e t h o d s a n d targets of censor-
ship in E n g l a n d h a d c h a n g e d f r o m the t i m e of M a r y to Charles II. Par-
liament h a d g r o w n stronger during the 137-year t e r m of the S t a t i o n e r s '
C o m p a n y m o n o p o l y a n d h a d c o m e to realize that censorship w a s pos-
sible w i t h o u t granting m o n o p o l i e s to f a v o r e d p u b l i s h e r s . Oliver C r o m -
well's rise a n d fall h a d o p e n e d m a n y questions to debate, s u c h as the
extent of tolerable censorship a n d the d a n g e r s of m o n o p o l i e s . E v e n t u -
ally, C h a r l e s II insisted on k e e p i n g the p o w e r to censor close to his
court, in the office of a royally a p p o i n t e d S u r v e y o r of the Press. T h e Sur-
v e y o r raided s o m e p r i n t e r s ' h o u s e s to b u r n a n t i m o n a r c h a l tracts that
lay a r o u n d from p r e v i o u s years, so the Stationers w e r e n o t h e l d in h i g h
e s t e e m after the Restoration. B u t t h r o u g h all that turmoil, E n g l i s h law
recognized the p o w e r of a p u b l i s h e r to exclusively print a n d distribute
particular w o r k s . Stability w a s essential to control. But the publishers
w e r e steadily losing political p o w e r . D e s p i t e constant l o b b y i n g b y the
S t a t i o n e r s ' C o m p a n y to k e e p their m o n o p o l y p o w e r s intact, the final re-
n e w a l of the Licensing Act expired in 1 6 9 4 . 9

Was there a w a y to buffer the p e r n i c i o u s effects of a monopoly,

avoid the perils of c e n s o r s h i p , a n d stabilize the b o o k m a r k e t s u c h that
authors w o u l d b e able to p r o d u c e w o r k s w i t h the c o n f i d e n c e that they
w o u l d reap s o m e financial r e w a r d ? T h e Stationers c o n c e d e d that they
h a d to c o m p r o m i s e — l i m i t their m o n o p o l y — i f t h e y w e r e to restore sta-
bility to the m a r k e t p l a c e . A s L o r d C a m d e n later described the Station-
e r s ' lobbying efforts: " ( P u b l i s h e r s ) c a m e u p to P a r l i a m e n t in the f o r m of
petitioners, w i t h tears in their eyes, h o p e l e s s a n d forlorn; t h e y b r o u g h t
with t h e m their w i v e s a n d children to excite c o m p a s s i o n , a n d induce
Parliament to grant t h e m statutory security." T h e y failed to excite c o m -
passion, so they s o u g h t out allies w h o m i g h t i n d u c e s o m e a c t i o n . 10

THE STRAW MAN: R E C O G N I T I O N OF AUTHORSHIP

T h e S t a t i o n e r s ' C h a r t e r a n d the licensing acts that f o l l o w e d it w e r e

clearly p u b l i s h e r s ' l a w s . T h e y regulated printing, yet h a d n o d i m e n s i o n
 40 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

of p r o p e r t y to t h e m . A l t h o u g h a u t h o r s h a d status a n d a place in the

c o m m e r c i a l p r o c e s s of b o o k m a k i n g , t h e y w e r e not m e n t i o n e d as parties
to the legal calculus. That c h a n g e d in 1709, w h e n p u b l i s h e r s a p p e a l e d
to the interests of a u t h o r s to r e n e w their m o n o p o l y protection. To secure
w h a t w o u l d b e c o m e k n o w n as the Statute of A n n e , printers a r g u e d that
the interests of b o t h a u t h o r s a n d the public w e r e h a r m e d b y the l a c k of
price stability in the m a r k e t p l a c e . T h e title of the legislation read: " A n
A c t for the E n c o u r a g e m e n t of Learning, b y Vesting the C o p i e s of
printed B o o k s in the A u t h o r s , or P u r c h a s e r s , of s u c h C o p i e s , during the
Times therein m e n t i o n e d . " 11

T h e S t a t u t e of A n n e , o f t e n e r r o n e o u s l y d u b b e d " t h e first c o p y -
right l a w , " e s t a b l i s h e d t w o levels of c o p y r i g h t . T h e first level w a s
i s s u e d in t h e n a m e of t h e a u t h o r for all b o o k s that w o u l d b e p u b -
lished after the act t o o k effect. T h e t e r m of p r o t e c t i o n w a s f o r f o u r t e e n
y e a r s , r e n e w a b l e for a n o t h e r f o u r t e e n y e a r s . In o t h e r w o r d s , this re-
w a r d for a u t h o r s h i p w a s a n " e n c o u r a g e m e n t of l e a r n i n g , " a n i n c e n -
tive to p r o d u c e m o r e b o o k s . T h e s e c o n d level r e i n f o r c e d t h e Station-
e r s ' e x c l u s i v e rights to p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d w o r k s for a n o n r e n e w -
able t w e n t y - o n e - y e a r t e r m . T h e a d d i t i o n of t h e s e t e r m limits created
the first c o d i f i e d n o t i o n of a " p u b l i c d o m a i n , " a c o l l e c t i o n of w o r k s
old e n o u g h to b e c o n s i d e r e d o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e of the l a w a n d t h u s
u n d e r t h e control of t h e p u b l i c a n d the c u l t u r e at large. A l t h o u g h the
a u t h o r w a s m e n t i o n e d as the b e n e f i c i a r y of the statute, t h e act w a s re-
ally a n o t h e r r e g u l a t i o n of t h e p r a c t i c e of p r i n t i n g a n d selling b o o k s ,
n o t w r i t i n g t h e m , a n d a r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e p u b l i c ' s interest in the
p r o c e s s . T h e c o d i f i c a t i o n of a u t h o r s h i p w a s m e r e l y a n a p p e a l to a
s t r a w m a n . A m a n u s c r i p t is w o r t h n o t h i n g o n the m a r k e t until a n a u -
thor a s s i g n s the rights to a p u b l i s h e r . A t that point, t h e p u b l i s h e r is
the real p l a y e r in the legal a n d c o m m e r c i a l g a m e . Mainly, the S t a t u t e
of A n n e w a s a n e l a b o r a t e a t t e m p t to r e g u l a t e p u b l i s h e r s , a w a y to b a l -
a n c e t h e interests of the b o o k p r i n t i n g i n d u s t r y w i t h t h e c o n c e r n s that
m o n o p o l i e s w e r e g r o w i n g too p o w e r f u l in E n g l a n d . 1 2

O n c e P a r l i a m e n t forged the c o m p r o m i s e in 1709 in the Statute of

A n n e , the duration of the c o p y r i g h t m o n o p o l y b e c a m e the m o s t divi-
sive issue. It pitted p u b l i s h e r s , w h o w a n t e d to b e able to control the
prices of their w o r k s after c o p y r i g h t s e x p i r e d , against the b o o k - b u y i n g
public, w h i c h w a n t e d access to i n e x p e n s i v e material. It also pitted a
n e w b r e e d of p u b l i s h e r s — t h e p i r a t e s — a g a i n s t the established m e m -
bers of the Stationers' C o m p a n y . O n c e the t w e n t y - o n e - y e a r g r a n d f a t h e r
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 41

clause that c o v e r e d p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d w o r k s e x p i r e d in 1732, a con-

flict w a s destined to b e resolved b y the courts.

THE STATUTE O R T H E C O M M O N LAW?

S o o n after the Statute of A n n e ' s t w e n t y - o n e - y e a r t e r m on exclusive

rights to " t h e c l a s s i c s " e x p i r e d , a court w a s called u p o n to a n s w e r the
f u n d a m e n t a l questions of copyright. D o e s c o p y r i g h t flow f r o m the p e n
of the p e r s o n w h o w r o t e a w o r k or f r o m the state? W a s c o p y r i g h t a
p r o d u c t of a statute, a n d therefore limited to the statutory term, or a
right secured b y that ill-behaved a n d ill-defined beast, the c o m m o n law,
a n d therefore perpetual? In o t h e r w o r d s , w h o is c o p y r i g h t for? Is it for
the author? S h o u l d it serve the publisher? S h o u l d it benefit the public?
W h a t a b o u t the C r o w n ? In the e i g h t e e n t h century, British courts ruled
on t w o relevant cases, each w i t h different o u t c o m e s .
After b e i n g d i s a p p o i n t e d in P a r l i a m e n t b y the c o m p r o m i s e e m b o d -
ied in the Statute of A n n e , printers m o v e d their attention to the courts.
In E n g l i s h law, there is a constant tension b e t w e e n the principles that
s l o w l y b u b b l e u p out of the c a u l d r o n of i n d i v i d u a l court decisions and
P a r l i a m e n t ' s g r a n d , s w e e p i n g policies. Petitioners often a s k courts to
decide w h e t h e r there is a d e e p e r principle " a t c o m m o n l a w " that pre-
cedes a n d p e r h a p s s u p e r s e d e s a statute. M a n y jurists, s u c h as William
Blackstone, c o n s i d e r e d c o m m o n law, w h i c h b y nature c h a n g e s slowly,
a n e c e s s a r y buffer on the u n p r e d i c t a b l e a n d radical potential of leg-
islation. T h e E n g l i s h c o m m o n l a w s y s t e m invites conflict a n d uncer-
tainty, w h i c h are its strengths a n d w e a k n e s s e s , its sources of b o t h flexi-
bility a n d stability. F r o m B l a c k s t o n e on, the m a i n s t r e a m of British legal
t h o u g h t r e m a i n e d defiantly p r o u d that its c o m m o n l a w s u p p l i e d a
m e a s u r e of predictability w h i l e E u r o p e a n n a t i o n s , w i t h their clean and
clear c o d e s of law, w e r e relatively chaotic. W h i l e the rest of Renaissance
E u r o p e w a s b u s y a d o p t i n g the rediscovered R o m a n legal c o d e , Eng-
l a n d declined. W i t h ethnocentric fervor, British jurists resisted codifica-
tion. T h e principles of English l a w w o u l d a l w a y s exist in a n d e m a n a t e
from the cases a n d decisions that courts h e a r d . 13

So the Stationers d e c i d e d t h e y n e e d e d to force a court case in w h i c h

t h e y c o u l d a r g u e that a n a u t h o r (their favorite w e a p o n ) h a d a right at
c o m m o n l a w to control the p r i n t i n g of a w o r k forever. After all, t h e y ar-
g u e d , writers created n e w w o r k s b y m i x i n g their labor w i t h the r a w
 42 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

materials of existing ideas a n d stories. This " m i x i n g m e t a p h o r " is the

operative principle b e h i n d J o h n L o c k e ' s t h e o r y of property. If the Sta-
tioners c o u l d get the courts to certify that the principles of c o m m o n law,
w h i c h g a v e l a n d h o l d e r s perpetual rights to their land a n d all its uses,
a p p l y to w o r k s of literature, t h e n the o n e r o u s a n t i m o n o p o l i s t i c parts of
the Statute of A n n e w o u l d n o l o n g e r a p p l y a n d o n l y the exclusivity
would remain. 14

T h e S t a t i o n e r s p l a n n e d to h a v e a s y m p a t h e t i c c o u r t rule o n a
b o g u s c l a i m , a c o l l u s i v e suit, in w h i c h o n e m e m b e r w o u l d i n t e n t i o n -
ally r e p u b l i s h a n o t h e r ' s w o r k , a n d the plaintiff w o u l d c l a i m p e r p e t -
u a l c o p y r i g h t at c o m m o n law. O n e b o o k s e l l e r n a m e d T o n s o n a g r e e d
to s u e another, C o l l i n s , w h o h a d a g r e e d in a d v a n c e to lose a n d de-
cline to a p p e a l . A n a p p e a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n p o t e n t i a l l y d i s a s t r o u s to
the S t a t i o n e r s , b e c a u s e the final c o u r t of a p p e a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n the
H o u s e of L o r d s , w h i c h h a d a l r e a d y e x p r e s s e d its c o p y r i g h t p h i l o s o -
p h y t h r o u g h the S t a t u t e of A n n e . T h e b o o k s e l l e r s f u n d e d legal r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n for b o t h s i d e s , a n d h a p p i l y a r g u e d t h e c o m m o n l a w side
m o r e forcefully a n d skillfully b e f o r e a s y m p a t h e t i c j u d g e , L o r d M a n s -
field. H o w e v e r , just after L o r d M a n s f i e l d h e a r d t h e initial a r g u m e n t s ,
h e o r d e r e d t h e c a s e to b e h e a r d b y t h e full c o u r t of t h e Chancery.
S o m e h o w , t h e j u d g e s l e a r n e d that the suit w a s c o l l u s i v e , so t h e y dis-
m i s s e d the case of Tonson v. Collins. 15

A real case c a m e to light in 1769. T h e poet J a m e s T h o m s o n sold the

rights to his p o e m " T h e S e a s o n s " to a p u b l i s h e r n a m e d A n d r e w Millar.
Millar printed the p o e m in 1729 a n d enjoyed the exclusivity afforded b y
the Statute of A n n e for the entire twenty-eight-year term. After the
p o e m h a d entered the p u b l i c d o m a i n , a n o t h e r printer, R o b e r t Taylor,
printed " T h e S e a s o n s . " Millar s u e d a n d w o n . T h e j u d g e s w h o h e a r d the
case ruled that the act of creation instills a p r o p e r t y right in the w o r k ,
a n d that T h o m s o n h a d a s s i g n e d that right forever to Millar. L o r d M a n s -
field a g a i n h e a r d this case, a n d w r o t e a n o p i n i o n that reflected this n e w
t h e o r y of " l i t e r a r y p r o p e r t y " a n d the natural l a w justification for c o m -
m o n l a w copyright: " B e c a u s e it is just, that a n a u t h o r s h o u l d reap the
p e c u n i a r y profits of his o w n i n g e n u i t y a n d labour. It is just, that another
should n o t use his n a m e , w i t h o u t his consent. It is fit that h e [the author]
should j u d g e w h e n to publish, o r w h e t h e r h e e v e r will publish. It is fit,
h e should n o t o n l y c h o o s e the time, b u t the m a n n e r of publication; h o w
many; what volume; what print." 16

But the legal s a g a of " T h e S e a s o n s " c o n t i n u e d a n d t u r n e d b a c k on

 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 43

itself five years later, in the 1774 case of Donaldson v. Beckett. After Mil-
lar w o n his case in 1769, h e died. M i l l a r ' s estate s o l d the rights to " T h e
S e a s o n s " to a s y n d i c a t e of fifteen printers that i n c l u d e d T h o m a s Becket.
Sensing an o p p o r t u n i t y to exploit a flaw in the n e w c o m m o n law c o p y -
right, a p p e a l it, a n d o n c e a n d for all establish a p u b l i c d o m a i n of avail-
able w o r k s , a Scottish publishing c o m p a n y r u n b y J o h n a n d A l e x a n d e r
D o n a l d s o n issued a n u n a u t h o r i z e d edition of " T h e S e a s o n s . " Becket
s u e d a n d o b t a i n e d a n injunction against the D o n a l d s o n edition. T h e
D o n a l d s o n s a p p e a l e d , a n d the case w e n t all the w a y to the H o u s e of
Lords. T h e L o r d s clearly ruled that there h a d n e v e r b e e n a n y s u c h thing
as c o p y r i g h t at c o m m o n law. Before Millar v. Taylor, n o j u d g e h a d
r e a c h e d s u c h a n opinion, s o c o m m o n l a w c o p y r i g h t ' s standing in the
b o d y of l a w w a s v e r y w e a k a n d directly c o n t r a d i c t e d the letter and
spirit of the Statute of A n n e . T h e idea that a u t h o r s h a d a natural p r o p -
erty right to their w o r k as a principle of c o m m o n l a w lasted o n l y five
years. H o w e v e r , the a r g u m e n t s a n d the rhetoric, the " p r o p e r t y t a l k "
that i n f o r m e d the decision i n Millar v. Taylor, h a v e lasted m o r e t h a n t w o
h u n d r e d y e a r s . N o n e t h e l e s s , the decision in Donaldson v. Becket stated
u n e q u i v o c a l l y that copyright w a s a state-granted p r i v i l e g e that should
last for a limited time, n o t a p e r p e t u a l n a t u r a l right that flows magically
from a n a u t h o r ' s p e n . 1 7

THE AMERICAN W A Y

T h e story of A m e r i c a n copyright b e g i n s e v e n before the Constitution of

the U n i t e d States, w h i c h g u a r a n t e e s s o m e f o r m of federal c o p y r i g h t
protection. F r e e d from the restraints of the C r o w n a n d colonial gover-
nors, A m e r i c a n printers h a d m o r e incentive to pirate o t h e r s ' w o r k s ,
w h i l e A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s h a d less incentive to p r o d u c e original w o r k s .
In reaction, m a n y states e n a c t e d c o p y r i g h t statutes after the R e v o l u t i o n
divorced A m e r i c a n courts from British statutory law. In a n effort to
standardize c o p y r i g h t law, the Constitutional C o n v e n t i o n a d o p t e d a
provision a l l o w i n g C o n g r e s s to w r i t e l a w s " t o p r o m o t e the progress of
science a n d useful a r t s . " C o n g r e s s delivered protection to authors and
publishers in the C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1790.
T h e r o a d to the A c t of 1790 b e g a n w i t h N o a h W e b s t e r ' s efforts to get
each state to p a s s a copyright act that w o u l d protect his w o r k as both
an a u t h o r a n d a publisher. E a r l y p r o p o n e n t s of a national c o p y r i g h t
 44 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

standard i n c l u d e d J e r e m y B e l k n a p , the f o u n d e r of the M a s s a c h u s e t t s

Historical Society (and a u t h o r of The Foresters, the first A m e r i c a n n o v e l
to receive federal c o p y r i g h t protection in 1792), a n d T h o m a s P a i n e , the
r e v o l u t i o n a r y p a m p h l e t e e r w h o s e h a t r e d of censorship w a s a driving
force in his life a n d w o r k . B u t Webster, the a s s e m b l e r of the m o s t p o p u -
lar v o l u m e p u b l i s h e d in A m e r i c a , his b l u e - b a c k e d speller, w a s the m o s t
effective lobbyist. B e c a u s e the Articles of C o n f e d e r a t i o n did n o t specif-
ically grant C o n g r e s s the p o w e r to w r i t e l a w s that w o u l d regulate c o p y -
rights, Webster w o r k e d o n individual state legislatures b e g i n n i n g in
1782. After failing in N e w York a n d N e w Jersey, Webster s u c c e e d e d in
convincing the C o n n e c t i c u t legislature to pass the first A m e r i c a n c o p y -
right statute in J a n u a r y 1 7 8 3 . T h e l a w w a s entitled " A c t for the e n c o u r -
a g e m e n t of Literature a n d G e n i u s . " It g r a n t e d a n y a u t h o r w h o w a s a
resident of the U n i t e d States control o v e r the printing, p u b l i s h i n g , a n d
selling of a w o r k for a t e r m of fourteen y e a r s , r e n e w a b l e for another
fourteen years. T h e l a w also required that the a u t h o r " f u r n i s h the P u b -
lic w i t h sufficient E d i t i o n s , " s u c h that a n author c o u l d n o t benefit from
the protection of the l a w w h i l e restricting access to his w o r k . S u c h a bal-
ance, a tradeoff, b e t w e e n public g o o d a n d p r i v a t e r e w a r d served as the
g e r m i n a l i d e a of A m e r i c a n copyright, a n d in m a n y w a y s the C o n n e c t i -
cut l a w s e r v e d as a m o d e l for the first n a t i o n a l statute in 1790. S o o n after
his success in Connecticut, Webster c o n v i n c e d the legislatures of M a s s -
achusetts, N e w York (despite his p r e v i o u s failure), N e w Jersey, N e w
H a m p s h i r e , R h o d e Island, Virginia, a n d D e l a w a r e . P e n n s y l v a n i a a n d
M a r y l a n d j o i n e d in, b u t w i t h m u c h w e a k e r l a w s that w o u l d n o t g o into
effect until all the other states c o n c u r r e d . Therefore, b o t h the terms of
the l a w s a n d the level of e n f o r c e m e n t a n d dates of e n a c t m e n t differed
a m o n g the states. It b e c a m e clear to Webster, M a d i s o n , a n d others that
copyright w a s o n e of the areas of l a w that w o u l d b e b e s t dealt w i t h on
a federal l e v e l . 18

T h e introduction of the a u t h o r into the legal m a t r i x of copyright, as

w e h a v e seen, occurred in the first d e c a d e of the e i g h t e e n t h century, a n d
c u l m i n a t e d in the Statute of A n n e in 1709. M i n d f u l of the principles of
that debate, a n d of the d a n g e r o u s p o w e r that m o n o p o l y licensing g a v e
b o t h the state a n d the f a v o r e d p u b l i s h e r s , J a m e s M a d i s o n a n d N o a h
Webster set a b o u t establishing the w o r k i n g principles of A m e r i c a n
copyright just after the Revolution.
T h e p h r a s e that e m e r g e d from the Constitutional C o n v e n t i o n b e -
c a m e article 1, section 8 of the Constitution: C o n g r e s s shall h a v e the
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 45

p o w e r to " p r o m o t e the Progress of S c i e n c e a n d useful A r t s , b y securing

for limited Times to A u t h o r s a n d Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings a n d D i s c o v e r i e s . " This p h r a s e m a k e s it clear that
copyright a n d p a t e n t l a w s are m e a n t to benefit the public first a n d fore-
m o s t , so the public c a n enjoy the fruits of " S c i e n c e a n d the useful A r t s . "
T h e c l a u s e also e m b o d i e s the incentive principle, that c o p y r i g h t law
s h o u l d a l l o w e n o u g h exclusivity to " p r o m o t e " further creation, b u t
o n l y " f o r limited T i m e s . " 19

W h i l e c a m p a i g n i n g for constitutional ratification in N e w York

State, J a m e s M a d i s o n w r o t e a b o u t the c o p y r i g h t clause in Federalist 4 3 :
" T h e p u b l i c g o o d fully coincides in b o t h cases [copyright a n d patent]
with the claims of i n d i v i d u a l s , " thus reiterating the principle that in-
centive, n o t p r o p e r t y or n a t u r a l law, is the f o u n d a t i o n a l justification for
American copyright. 20

S o o n after C o n g r e s s p a s s e d the first federal copyright statute in

1790, N o a h W e b s t e r set a b o u t trying to e x t e n d it. H e s u c c e e d e d in
a m e n d i n g the act in 1802 to i n c l u d e the protection of the design, en-
graving, a n d etching of prints. B y 1 8 3 1 , Webster h a d g a r n e r e d e n o u g h
s u p p o r t to e x t e n d the t e r m of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n f r o m f o u r t e e n years
(renewable for a n o t h e r fourteen y e a r s ) , to t w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s (renew-
able for fourteen m o r e ) . T h e 1831 l a w also a l l o w e d the a u t h o r ' s w i d o w
a n d children to file for a r e n e w a l . Webster h a d fought for p e r p e t u a l
copyright protection, despite the constitutional provision forbidding it.
M o s t of the A m e r i c a n cultural p r o d u c t i o n of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y o p -
erated u n d e r the provisions of the c o p y r i g h t l a w of 1831, a n d the t e r m
of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n w o u l d n o t b e e x t e n d e d until 1909, a n d a g a i n in
1976 a n d 1 9 9 8 . 21

A s t h e A m e r i c a n p o p u l a t i o n g r e w in t h e first h a l f of the n i n e -
t e e n t h century, r e a d e r s h i p g r e w a n d t h e r e f o r e p u b l i s h i n g grew. T h e
first fifty y e a r s of t h e c e n t u r y s a w e v e r y m a j o r e a s t e r n city at least
d o u b l e its n u m b e r of b o o k s e l l i n g f i r m s . N e w York C i t y w e n t f r o m
f e w e r t h a n 60 in 1800 to m o r e t h a n 3 4 0 b y 1850. T h e e x p a n s i o n w a s
n o t o n l y d e m a n d - d r i v e n , b u t also facilitated b y t e c h n o l o g i c a l a d -
v a n c e s s u c h a s t h e Isaac A d a m s s t e a m press a n d v a r i o u s n e w t y p e s e t -
ting m e t h o d s . 2 2
The future looked bright for American publishers.
T h e o n l y p r o b l e m for A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s w a s that t h e p u b l i c s e e m e d
to w a n t o n l y n o v e l s that r e s e m b l e d t h e w o r k s of Sir W a l t e r Scott. B y
1830, ten p u b l i s h i n g firms in P h i l a d e l p h i a a l o n e p r i n t e d editions of
Scott's w o r k s . 2 3
 46 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

In the early republic, A m e r i c a n professional a u t h o r s h i p w a s strug-

gling to establish itself b u t f o u n d itself h a n d i c a p p e d b y legal a n d cul-
tural barriers. That a legislature w o u l d grant legal standing to a n a u t h o r
a n d e n c o u r a g e creativity b y g r a n t i n g a limited m o n o p o l y to distribute
creative w o r k s w a s central to the efforts to codify A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t
b e t w e e n 1776 a n d 1790. Yet s o m e p u b l i s h e d histories of A m e r i c a n a u -
thorship ignore the legislative e v i d e n c e a n d a s s u m e that b e c a u s e there
w a s n o identifiable " a u t h o r c l a s s " in A m e r i c a , there w a s n o s e n s e of
" a u t h o r s h i p " in the public a n d legislative discourse. Several historians
h a v e traced the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of copyright laws t h r o u g h o u t the U n i t e d
K i n g d o m a n d its s u b s e q u e n t colonization of other parts of the w o r l d .
M a n y of these historians attribute the rise of a u t h o r s h i p a n d the n e e d to
protect authorial originality to E n g l a n d of the eighteenth a n d n i n e -
teenth centuries. T h e r e is little historical f o u n d a t i o n for that a s s u m p -
tion. In fact, H a r r y R a n s o m , f o r m e r chancellor of the U n i v e r s i t y of
Texas a n d a p i o n e e r i n g copyright historian, n o t e d that authorial p r e -
tensions o c c u p i e d e v e n ancient G r e e k a n d R o m a n writers. For e x a m p l e ,
the R o m a n poet Martial c o m p l a i n e d against writers issuing false claims
to o t h e r s ' w o r k , w h a t h e called plagium, or k i d n a p i n g . In addition, an-
thropologist R u t h F i n n e g a n has attacked as simplistic a n d ethnocentric
the a s s u m p t i o n that oral cultures fail to r e c o g n i z e a u t h o r s h i p . " A u t h o r -
s h i p " is too often defined in ahistorical E u r o p e a n t e r m s . 24

So the historical origins of originality a n d a u t h o r s h i p are as m u r k y

as the c o n c e p t s t h e m s e l v e s . W h a t is clear, h o w e v e r , is that during the
eighteenth a n d n i n e t e e n t h centuries, British a u t h o r s o r g a n i z e d to p r o -
tect their financial interests a n d place in society. T h e y called for a v a l -
orization of their profession. T h e y r e c o g n i z e d that t h e y controlled a
v a l u a b l e financial a n d cultural c o m m o d i t y in a thriving e m p i r e that
b a s e d its imperialistic m o t i v a t i o n s o n the superiority of its culture.
T h e y lobbied for copyright laws to protect their financial i n t e r e s t s . 25

In 1834, the U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t dealt a b l o w to the n a t u r a l l a w

mystification of the a u t h o r b y ruling that a c o p y r i g h t is a p r i v i l e g e d m o -
nopoly, a n d that it s h o u l d b e limited to a l l o w c o m p e t i t i v e p r i n t i n g to
d i s s e m i n a t e k n o w l e d g e cheaply. T h e case arose f r o m a dispute b e t w e e n
t w o reporters for the U n i t e d States S u p r e m e Court. H e n r y W h e a t o n
h a d for m a n y y e a r s c o m p i l e d the reports of the C o u r t . H i s successor,
Richard Peters, decided to s u p p l e m e n t the continuing reports w i t h a se-
ries of " c o n d e n s e d r e p o r t s " that i n c l u d e d decisions that h a d b e e n p u b -
lished b y W h e a t o n y e a r s earlier. W h e a t o n a r g u e d that Peters h a d in-
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 47

fringed o n his c o p y r i g h t s b o t h t h r o u g h the c o p y r i g h t statute and

through c o m m o n law. T h e circuit c o u r t t o s s e d out the statutory claim
b e c a u s e W h e a t o n h a d n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h all of its r e q u i r e m e n t s . It de-
clined to rule o n the c o m m o n l a w question, so W h e a t o n a p p e a l e d to the
S u p r e m e Court. Writing for the majority, Justice M c L e a n declared that
the U n i t e d States r e c o g n i z e d n o c o m m o n l a w n o t i o n of copyright, and
a r g u e d that a perpetual m o n o p o l y w o u l d n o t b e in the interest of the
public. 26

THE BRITISH R O M A N T I C S

M e a n w h i l e , over in E n g l a n d , the long battle b e t w e e n a u t h o r s a n d p u b -

lishers h a d c h a n g e d b y the 1830s. A s the British a u t h o r rose in status,
British publishers n o t i c e d that they benefited as w e l l from the e m e r g i n g
" s t a r s y s t e m . " A u t h o r s a n d publishers ceased fighting as t h e y realized
that t h e y b o t h benefited from a strong copyright s y s t e m a n d the rising
cultural v a l u e of literacy a n d learning. A s the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y rolled
in, m o r e p e o p l e realized t h e y c o u l d m a k e a living as writers for a n ex-
p a n d i n g r e a d e r s h i p . B o t h sides s o o n r e c o g n i z e d the political p o w e r of
the claim that authorial g e n i u s " d e s e r v e d " n o t just a n incentive, b u t an
a m p l e r e w a r d for w o r k d o n e o n b e h a l f of the E m p i r e a n d c u l t u r e . 27

In 1837, W i l l i a m W o r d s w o r t h ' s friend T h o m a s N o o n Talfourd, an

a u t h o r a n d a m e m b e r of P a r l i a m e n t , o p e n e d a c a m p a i g n for revision of
the C o p y r i g h t Act o n b e h a l f of the authors. T h e t e r m Talfourd pro-
p o s e d — t h e a u t h o r ' s lifetime p l u s sixty y e a r s — d r e w opposition from
the b o o k trade, m o s t n o t a b l y f r o m T h o m a s Tegg, w h o specialized in
cheap reprints. This o p p o s i t i o n r o u s e d W o r d s w o r t h to action. H e or-
g a n i z e d a petition drive a m o n g British a u t h o r s in s u p p o r t of the exten-
sion. In 1839, W o r d s w o r t h , R o b e r t Southey, T h o m a s Carlyle, a n d other
literary figures s u b m i t t e d petitions to P a r l i a m e n t . Finally, u n d e r the
s t e w a r d s h i p of L o r d M a h o n , P a r l i a m e n t p a s s e d the C o p y r i g h t A c t of
1842, w h i c h lasted until the t w e n t i e t h century. This p r o v i d e d a t e r m of
the a u t h o r ' s lifetime plus s e v e n y e a r s , or f o r t y - t w o years from publica-
t i o n — w h i c h e v e r w a s longer. T h e a u t h o r s w e r e fairly h a p p y w i t h their
efforts. 28

A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s a n d p u b l i s h e r s f o u g h t a s i m i l a r b a t t l e fifty
y e a r s later t h a n the British r o m a n t i c s did, a n d it l a s t e d a d e c a d e
into t h e t w e n t i e t h century. First, a u t h o r s s t r u g g l e d a g a i n s t A m e r i c a n
 48 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

p u b l i s h e r s for a c o p y r i g h t t r e a t y that w o u l d p r o t e c t t h e i r w o r k s
t h r o u g h o u t the E n g l i s h - r e a d i n g w o r l d ; s e c o n d , t h e y w o r k e d to ex-
t e n d the d u r a t i o n of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n . This h e i g h t e n e d the strug-
gle b e t w e e n A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s a n d p u b l i s h e r s , a n d e s t a b l i s h e d the
struggle between authors and readers. 29

A M E R I C A N REALISTS

In t h e last three d e c a d e s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h century, the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of

l i t e r a r y p e r i o d i c a l s s u c h as the Atlantic Monthly a n d Scribner's, t h e ex-
p a n s i o n of literacy, t h e s u c c e s s of s u b s c r i p t i o n b o o k sales across the
c o n t i n e n t , a n d the i n f l u e n c e of the w r i t i n g class in B o s t o n a n d S a n
F r a n c i s c o f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d t h e b a t t l e b e t w e e n p r o d u c e r s a n d con-
s u m e r s . In t h e w a k e of t w o l a n d m a r k c o p y r i g h t cases, Wheaton v. Pe-
ters a n d Stowe v. Thomas, A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s b y t h e 1880s h a d o r g a n -
ized t h e m s e l v e s as a u t h o r s h a d in E n g l a n d . In W o r d s w o r t h ' s p l a c e at
the h e a d of t h e political c h a r g e a g a i n s t p u b l i s h e r s w a s a publisher,
S a m u e l C l e m e n s . To a c h i e v e his e n d s h e d o n n e d his l i t e r a r y m a s k as
the c h a m p i o n o f A m e r i c a n e x p r e s s i o n , M a r k Twain. T w a i n a n d o t h e r
A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s w e r e i n s p i r e d n o t o n l y b y their British c o u n t e r -
p a r t s fighting to b e t t e r their p o s i t i o n , b u t b y the fate of o n e of their
o w n in A m e r i c a n c o u r t s .
In 1853, a U.S. circuit court h e a r d a case that Harriet B e e c h e r S t o w e
a n d h e r h u s b a n d filed against F. W. T h o m a s , the p u b l i s h e r of a Philadel-
p h i a G e r m a n - l a n g u a g e n e w s p a p e r , Die Freie Presse. T h o m a s h a d trans-
lated Uncle Tom's Cabin into G e r m a n w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n or p a y m e n t
a n d s o l d the b o o k in the U n i t e d States. T h e r e w a s n o statutory g u i d e -
line for h o w translations w o u l d affect a n a u t h o r ' s rights, so the U.S.
T h i r d Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s ruled that the 1831 C o p y r i g h t A c t p r o -
tected o n l y the precise w o r d s S t o w e u s e d , a n d n o t h e r ideas, w h i c h
w e r e really the subjects of translation.
A s J u d g e R o b e r t Grier w r o t e in his decision: " A n a u t h o r m a y be
said to b e the creator or inventor, b o t h of the ideas c o n t a i n e d in his
b o o k , a n d the c o m b i n a t i o n of w o r k s to represent t h e m . Before publica-
tion h e h a s the exclusive p o s s e s s i o n of his invention. H i s d o m i n i o n is
perfect. B u t w h e n h e h a s p u b l i s h e d his b o o k a n d g i v e n his t h o u g h t s ,
s e n t i m e n t s , k n o w l e d g e or discoveries to the w o r l d , h e can h a v e n o
longer a n exclusive p o s s e s s i o n of t h e m . " Grier e c h o e d the s e n t i m e n t s
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 49

that Jefferson h a d e x p r e s s e d forty years earlier. " S u c h a n appropriation

[the c l a i m to p r o p e r t y in ideas t h e m s e l v e s ] b e c o m e s i m p o s s i b l e , a n d is
inconsistent w i t h the object of p u b l i c a t i o n , " Grier w r o t e .

The author's conceptions have become the common property of his

readers, who cannot be deprived of the use of them, or their right to
communicate them to others clothed in their own language, by lecture
or by treatise. The claim of literary property, therefore, after publica-
tion, cannot be in the ideas, sentiments or the creations of the imagi-
nation of the poet or novelist, as disserved from the language, idiom,
style, or the outward semblance and exhibition of them.

T h e n Grier e m p l o y e d the m e t a p h o r of clothing to describe the differ-

ence b e t w e e n idea a n d expression.

A "copy" of a book must, therefore, be a transcript of the language in

which the conceptions of the author are clothed; of something printed
and embodied in a tangible shape. The same conceptions clothed in
another language cannot constitute the same composition; nor can it
be called a transcript or "copy" of the same "book." I have seen a lit-
eral translation of Burns' poems into French prose; but to call it a copy
of the original, would be as ridiculous as the translation itself.

Here Grier i n v o k e d — p e r h a p s i n v e n t e d — a v e r y strict definition of the

idea/expression dichotomy, t w e n t y - s e v e n years before the case of Baker
v. Selden, w h e n the S u p r e m e C o u r t outlined the concept. " H e n c e , in
questions of i n f r i n g e m e n t of c o p y r i g h t , the inquiry is not, w h e t h e r the
d e f e n d a n t h a s u s e d the t h o u g h t s , c o n c e p t i o n s , i n f o r m a t i o n o r discover-
ies p r o m u l g a t e d b y the o r i g i n a l , " Grier w r o t e , " b u t w h e t h e r his c o m -
position m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d a n e w w o r k requiring invention, learning
a n d j u d g m e n t , o r o n l y a m e r e transcript of the w h o l e or p a r t s of the
original, w i t h m e r e l y colorable v a r i a t i o n s . " 30

A s M e l i s s a H o m e s t e a d h a s s h o w n in h e r article " T h e A u t h o r /
M o t h e r in the M a r k e t p l a c e a n d in C o u r t : Harriet B e e c h e r S t o w e and
the C o p y r i g h t in Uncle Tom's Cabin," the case of Stowe v. Thomas, while
u n d e r s t u d i e d b y o t h e r S t o w e scholars, literary historians, a n d c o p y -
right historians, w a s central to S t o w e ' s s t a n d i n g as an a u t h o r a n d legal
agent, a n d to the d o m i n a n t c o p y r i g h t p h i l o s o p h y in the m i d - n i n e t e e n t h
century. C o n g r e s s , at the b e h e s t of a u t h o r s a n d p u b l i s h e r s , i n c l u d e d
 50 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

translations a n d d r a m a t i c a d a p t a t i o n s a m o n g a u t h o r s ' rights in a

copyright revision l a w of 1870, o p e n i n g the first fault in the i d e a /
expression dichotomy. F o r A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s , t h o u g h , the 1853 case
w o u l d s e r v e for d e c a d e s as a n e x a m p l e of h o w courts w e r e unlikely to
r e w a r d t h e m for their w o r k . T h e a n t i p r o p e r t y rhetoric of G r i e r ' s deci-
sion p u s h e d a u t h o r s into a fervent d e f e n s e of copyright as property, a
strategy t h e y felt a p p e a l e d to the public's affection for frontier individ-
ualism and justice. 31

T O W A R D A N A N G L O - A M E R I C A N C O P Y R I G H T TREATY

D u r a t i o n a n d level of p r o t e c t i o n for A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s w e r e not the

o n l y i s s u e s o n the t a b l e d u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h century. T h e S t o w e
case r e v e a l e d a far m o r e s e r i o u s p r o b l e m : A m e r i c a n w o r k s w e r e s u b -
j e c t to p i r a c y in b o t h E n g l i s h a n d t r a n s l a t i o n , a n d E u r o p e a n a u t h o r s
c o u l d reap n o profit f r o m their w o r k s b e i n g p r i n t e d for the b u r g e o n -
ing A m e r i c a n r e a d i n g p u b l i c . B y 1890, o n l y o n e E u r o p e a n n a t i o n ,
R u s s i a , h a d j o i n e d the U n i t e d States in resisting i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o p y -
right a g r e e m e n t s . F o r d e c a d e s , A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s v o i c e d frustration
o v e r getting u n d e r p r i c e d in the A m e r i c a n m a r k e t p l a c e b y p i r a t e d
v e r s i o n s of t h e w o r k s of C h a r l e s D i c k e n s a n d Walter Scott. L i k e w i s e ,
f r o m t h e 1 8 3 0 s t h r o u g h t h e 1880s, British a u t h o r s a n d p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s
p u s h e d t h e U . S . C o n g r e s s to a d o p t a reciprocal c o p y r i g h t a g r e e m e n t
to limit p i r a c y . 32

A m e r i c a n readers w e r e h o o k e d o n i n e x p e n s i v e b o o k s . A n d British
w o r k s n o t o n l y carried h e a v i e r social a n d intellectual v a l u e — t h e y w e r e
cheaper. A L o n d o n reader w h o w a n t e d a c o p y of C h a r l e s D i c k e n s ' s A
Christmas Carol w o u l d h a v e to p a y the e q u i v a l e n t of $2.50 in 1843. A n
A m e r i c a n D i c k e n s fan w o u l d h a v e to p a y o n l y six cents p e r c o p y . 33

T h r o u g h o u t the n i n e t e e n t h century, those w h o f a v o r e d interna-

tional copyright relied o n t w o a r g u m e n t s . N e i t h e r of the a r g u m e n t s w a s
ultimately v e r y p e r s u a s i v e . T h e first w a s that the lack of protection for
British a u t h o r s w a s blatantly unfair to t h e m , a n d that a basic sense of
justice s h o u l d prevail; the s e c o n d w a s that international c o p y r i g h t
w o u l d b e in the interest of d e v e l o p i n g a national b o d y of literature in
the U n i t e d States, so that A m e r i c a n literature m i g h t b e s o m e t h i n g m o r e
than a v u l g a r offshoot of the British tradition. T h e four a r g u m e n t s
against international copyright w e r e m u c h m o r e effective: E x p a n d i n g
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 5I

A m e r i c a n literacy, especially o n the frontier, d e m a n d e d c h e a p yet ex-

cellent b o o k s ; there w a s n o inherent " p r o p e r t y r i g h t " in literature
(courts on b o t h sides of the Atlantic h a d u p h e l d this principle); extend-
ing copyright protection to foreigners m e a n t g r a n t i n g a m o n o p o l y to
t h e m at the e x p e n s e of the A m e r i c a n reading p u b l i c ; a n d A m e r i c a n
publishing h o u s e s a n d the labor t h e y e m p l o y e d n e e d e d the de facto
protectionism that p i r a c y afforded.
U n d e t e r r e d b y t h e c u l t u r a l , p o l i t i c a l , a n d e c o n o m i c forces ar-
r a y e d a g a i n s t t h e m , a c o r p s of fifty-five B r i t i s h w r i t e r s a n d p o e t s peti-
t i o n e d the U.S. C o n g r e s s in J a n u a r y 1837 to a p p r o v e a bilateral c o p y -
right treaty. T h e y i n c l u d e d C a r l y l e , S o u t h e y , a n d M a r i a E d g e w o r t h .
S e n a t o r H e n r y C l a y b a c k e d t h e British a u t h o r s , b u t f e w o t h e r s did.
C l a y s u b m i t t e d a bill five t i m e s b e t w e e n 1 8 3 7 a n d 1 8 4 2 . A l l five at-
t e m p t s f a i l e d . B o o k s e l l e r s a n d t y p e s e t t e r s o p p o s e d the bills. S e v e r a l
p r o m i n e n t A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s a n d political l e a d e r s , i n c l u d i n g W a s h -
ington Irving, Edward Everett, and J o h n Quincy A d a m s , supported
the bills. O n l y t w o m a j o r p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e s , A p p l e t o n a n d P u t n a m ,
supported Clay's bills. 34

Frustrated b y the A m e r i c a n s ' u n w i l l i n g n e s s to agree to a level liter-

ary p l a y i n g field, British p r i m e minister P a l m e r s t o n in 1842 m a d e high-
level contacts w i t h the executive b r a n c h to get t h e m to agree to a c o p y -
right treaty, w h i c h , unlike C l a y ' s bills, w o u l d h a v e to b e a p p r o v e d only
b y the S e n a t e . P a l m e r s t o n ' s efforts m a d e n o difference. T h a t year, h o w -
ever, o n e E n g l i s h m a n w h o h a d the ear of m a n y A m e r i c a n s , Charles
D i c k e n s , toured the U n i t e d States. At m a n y stops, D i c k e n s p l e a d e d
for international copyright. Yet his a u d i e n c e s w e r e filled w i t h fans w h o
h a d h a p p i l y p a i d v e r y l o w prices for A m e r i c a n - p r i n t e d leather-bound
copies of his w o r k , f r o m w h i c h D i c k e n s e a r n e d nothing. D i c k e n s w a s
asking his readers to p a y m o r e m o n e y for his product, a n d t h e y w e r e in
no m o o d to do s o . D i c k e n s returned to E n g l a n d bitter a n d frustrated,
m o r e over w i t n e s s i n g slavery in the U n i t e d States t h a n o v e r the c o p y -
right situation. W h e n D i c k e n s ' s a c c o u n t of his tour, American Notes,
c a m e out in 1843, fifty t h o u s a n d pirated c o p i e s sold in the U n i t e d States
in three d a y s . 35

After the Civil War, the British g o v e r n m e n t m a d e several m o r e

attempts to c o n v i n c e the U.S. g o v e r n m e n t to agree to a treaty, a n d a u -
thors s t r e n g t h e n e d their organization. N o t h i n g c h a n g e d i n the law,
h o w e v e r , until the large A m e r i c a n publishers m a d e it clear to con-
gressional leaders that the p u b l i s h i n g a n d p i r a c y climate h a d c h a n g e d
 52 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

radically b e c a u s e of a " c h e a p b o o k s " m o v e m e n t a m o n g y o u n g e r u p -

start publishers.
S t a r t i n g w e l l b e f o r e the Civil War, l a r g e A m e r i c a n p u b l i s h e r s —
u s u a l l y b a s e d in N e w York C i t y or B o s t o n — c o l l u d e d to k e e p the
p r i c e s of their p i r a t e d E u r o p e a n w o r k s artificially h i g h . T h e y d i d this
t h r o u g h a s y s t e m k n o w n as t h e " c o u r t e s y p r i n c i p l e . " U n d e r t h e prin-
ciple, a m a j o r p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e a n n o u n c e d its i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g o u t
a f o r e i g n b o o k e i t h e r t h r o u g h a t r a d e j o u r n a l or t h r o u g h letters to
other publishers. The venerable publisher H e n r y Holt championed
the c o u r t e s y p r i n c i p l e a n d testified a b o u t its v a l u e a n d d e m i s e b e f o r e
the S e n a t e w h e n it w a s c o n s i d e r i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o p y r i g h t bill.
H o l t w a n t e d n o t o n l y to b e a b l e to sell t h e f o r e i g n w o r k s h e b r o u g h t
out at a p r e m i u m w i t h o u t six o t h e r e d i t i o n s to c o m p e t e a g a i n s t it, b u t
also to p u s h A m e r i c a n p u b l i s h i n g t o w a r d g e n t l e m a n l i n e s s . H o l t c o n -
sidered price-fixing "gentlemanly."
A m o n g the a u t h o r s w h o s e w o r k H o l t tried to control, T h o m a s
H a r d y serves as the best e x a m p l e of h o w the c o u r t e s y principle w o r k e d .
Holt h a d for years p r i d e d h i m s e l f o n introducing A m e r i c a n readers to
H a r d y ' s w o r k , a n d o n m o r e than o n e o c c a s i o n h e b e r a t e d other p u b -
lishers, s u c h as the u n p r e d i c t a b l e H a r p e r Brothers, for trying to bring
out c o m p e t i n g editions of H a r d y ' s w o r k . M o r e often t h a n not, the other
m a j o r p u b l i s h e r s deferred to Holt a n d let his h o u s e retain its list of
H a r d y w o r k s . " W e of c o u r s e claim H a r d y as o u r m a n as w e h a v e intro-
d u c e d h i m to the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c a n d w h e n w e a d d that w e h a v e p u b -
lished all his w o r k s b y direct a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h the author, w e trust that
y o u will w i t h d r a w in our f a v o r , " H o l t w r o t e to Lippincott in J u n e of
1875. Lippincott a l l o w e d H o l t to p u b l i s h The Hand ofEthelbert without
competition. Part of the reason efforts t o w a r d international c o p y r i g h t
failed for m o s t of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y w a s that the c o u r t e s y principle
w o r k e d just w e l l e n o u g h to k e e p A m e r i c a n publishers happy. H o l t paid
Hardy, b u t h e did n o t h a v e to. H a r d y w a s in n o position to n e g o t i a t e or
d e m a n d a better royalty rate t h a n the o n e H o l t offered h i m . But soon
after Holt p u b l i s h e d H a r d y ' s Far from the Madding Crowd (1874) a n d The
Hand ofEthelbert (1875), the c o u r t e s y s y s t e m c o l l a p s e d . 36

In 1874, the C h i c a g o p u b l i s h i n g firm of Donnelly, Gassette a n d

L l o y d r e c o g n i z e d that e v e r y respectable middle-class A m e r i c a n h o u s e -
hold w o u l d s e e m all the m o r e respectable w i t h a sizable library of major
w o r k s of British literature lining the walls of its parlor. T h e firm started
the L a k e s i d e Library, w h i c h sold b o o k s at the startlingly l o w price of
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 53

ten, fifteen, or t w e n t y cents p e r v o l u m e . Within five y e a r s , the L a k e s i d e

Library carried 270 titles. S o o n after the L a k e s i d e L i b r a r y a n n o u n c e d its
intentions, Erastus B e a d l e , the b a r o n of the Civil War-era d i m e novels,
i n t r o d u c e d a c o m p e t i n g list, the Fireside Library. G e o r g e P. M u n r o , a
f o r m e r B e a d l e e m p l o y e e , started the S e a s i d e Library, w h i c h w o u l d
g r o w to b e the m o s t successful of the c h e a p b o o k s lines. F r a n k Leslie
started a list h e called " T h e H o m e L i b r a r y of S t a n d a r d W o r k s b y the
M o s t C e l e b r a t e d A u t h o r s . " B y 1877, A m e r i c a n readers h a d their choice
of f o u r t e e n " c h e a p b o o k s " libraries. T h e paper w a s u n i f o r m l y cheap
a n d flimsy, the typesetting sloppy, a n d the format hard to read. S o m e of
the earlier editions lacked covers to k e e p their costs low. But s o o n the
cheap publishers realized that the spine w a s in m a n y cases the m o s t at-
t r a c t i v e — a n d m o s t v i s i b l e — p a r t of a b o o k . So b y the 1880s, m o s t of the
cheap b o o k s libraries a p p e a r e d in cloth b i n d i n g s at a slightly h i g h e r
price, b u t w i t h the s a m e c h e a p p a p e r inside. N e e d l e s s to say, n o n e of
these publishers w e r e part of the eastern s e a b o a r d elite club of publish-
ers w h o w e r e led b y H e n r y Holt. So n o n e of t h e m c o n f o r m e d to the
c o u r t e s y principle.
Of the established h o u s e s , H a r p e r a n d Brothers leapt on the cheap
b o o k s m o v e m e n t first, a n d w i t h the biggest splash. In 1877, H a r p e r
slashed the price of its L i b r a r y of Select N o v e l s . It t h e n l a u n c h e d a p a -
p e r b a c k discount line, the Franklin S q u a r e Library, w h i c h cost ten cents
p e r v o l u m e . U r b a n b o o k s t o r e s , w h i c h h a d m a i n l y i g n o r e d the mail
order a n d m a g a z i n e rack sales of c h e a p b o o k libraries, b e g a n stocking
the H a r p e r a n d Brothers libraries a n d s o o n b e g a n ordering the other li-
braries, s u c h as Seaside.
Prices d i p p e d , orders increased, a n d the c o u r t e s y principle with-
ered. A m e r i c a n readers h a d their choice of d o z e n s of editions of their fa-
vorite British a u t h o r s in a w i d e variety of prices a n d quality. T h e r e w a s
chaos in the A m e r i c a n p u b l i s h i n g i n d u s t r y b y the early 1880s. Soon,
stores a n d m a i l order c o m p a n i e s returned b o x e s of v o l u m e s . M u n r o cut
a deal w i t h a s o a p c o m p a n y to give out a v o l u m e w i t h each b a r of soap
sold. C h e a p libraries started b r i n g i n g out w o r k s b y a u t h o r s w h o h a d n o
public reputation in the U n i t e d States. A s A m e r i c a n w o r k s from early in
the c e n t u r y entered the p u b l i c d o m a i n , s o m e of the c h e a p b o o k s p u b -
lishers issued libraries of A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s . 37

B y the late 1880s, major A m e r i c a n publishers a n d a u t h o r s u n i t e d to

c h a m p i o n international c o p y r i g h t s o that t h e y c o u l d b r i n g s o m e stabil-
ity to the p u b l i s h i n g m a r k e t . T h e A u t h o r s ' C l u b , the m a j o r v e h i c l e for
 54 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s to express their desire for international copyright,

c h a n g e d itself in 1882 into the A m e r i c a n C o p y r i g h t L e a g u e u n d e r the
stewardship of journalist a n d novelist E d w a r d Eggleston, Century Mag-
azine editor R i c h a r d W a t s o n Gilder, a n d l a w y e r a n d critic B r a n d e r
M a t t h e w s . M a r k Twain a n d J a m e s R u s s e l l L o w e l l w e r e t w o of the m o r e
n o t a b l e writers w h o w e r e active in the l e a g u e , w h i c h c l a i m e d to repre-
sent as m a n y as 700 a u t h o r s . Gilder w a s also close friends w i t h Richard
Rogers B o w k e r , w h o ran b o t h Publisher's Weekly a n d the P u b l i s h e r s '
C o p y r i g h t L e a g u e . A s a result, b o t h leagues w o r k e d in concert w h e n
testifying or l o b b y i n g C o n g r e s s a n d w h e n p l e a d i n g in print for interna-
tional copyright. T h e rhetoric of the A m e r i c a n C o p y r i g h t L e a g u e , pre-
dictably, rang w i t h t h e m e s of " c i v i l i z a t i o n s " a n d " p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . "
C o n g r e s s still b a l k e d at the l e a g u e ' s proposals t h r o u g h o u t the 1880s.
T h e l e a g u e ' s best effort during the 1880s c a m e in J a n u a r y 1886, w h e n
the S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e o n Patents h e l d h e a r i n g s o n a n international
copyright bill. Witnesses in favor of the bill i n c l u d e d H e n r y Holt,
B o w k e r , G e o r g e P u t n a m , L o w e l l , a n d Twain. B o w k e r p r e s e n t e d a peti-
tion s i g n e d b y 145 of the m o s t n o t e d A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s , including
Louisa M a y Alcott, H e n r y Ward Beecher, Twain, H e n r y G e o r g e , Walt
W h i t m a n , Joel C h a n d l e r Harris, Bret H a r t e , Oliver W e n d e l l H o l m e s Sr.,
Francis P a r k m a n , a n d J o h n G r e e n l e a f Whittier. T w a i n m a n a g e d to get
himself invited o n t o the floor of the Senate to twist a r m s in favor of the
effort, b u t his official statement w a s brief a n d l u k e w a r m . 38

Testifying against the bill, P h i l a d e l p h i a pirate H e n r y C a r e y Baird

m a d e a succinct attack. H e h a d five m a j o r points: O n l y u n e x p r e s s e d
t h o u g h t is property, b u t expressed t h o u g h t b e l o n g s to the p u b l i c ; p r o p -
erty laws are d o m e s t i c c o n c e r n s , a n d s h o u l d n o t b e the subject of
treaties; British authors are w e l c o m e to naturalize in the U n i t e d States
if t h e y w a n t protection equal to A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s ; the U n i t e d States
should n o t t r a d e a w a y its p u b l i c interest to protect the rights of for-
eigners; foreign a u t h o r s s h o u l d n o t h a v e the p o w e r to influence or fix
the price of A m e r i c a n b o o k s . 39

B a i r d ' s t e s t i m o n y d i d n o t kill t h e bill b y itself, of c o u r s e . H e w a s

n e i t h e r m o r e p e r s u a s i v e n o r m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n t h e forces of m a j o r
American writers and publishers. However, Baird and his fellow pi-
r a t e s still h a d o r g a n i z e d l a b o r a n d the spirit of p r o t e c t i o n i s m on
their s i d e . B e t w e e n J a n u a r y a n d M a r c h of 1 8 8 6 , u n i o n s a n d t r a d e
g r o u p s d e l u g e d C o n g r e s s w i t h p e t i t i o n s o p p o s i n g t h e m e a s u r e . It
died soon after. 40
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 55

T h e last p a r t of the political m a c h i n e that w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y con-

vince C o n g r e s s to agree to international c o p y r i g h t w a s the p r i n t e r s '
u n i o n s in the major eastern cities. A s b o o k prices spiraled d o w n w a r d ,
s q u e e z i n g profits from the established firms, the n e w e r " c h e a p b o o k s "
publishers h a d to cut costs as w e l l . M a n y o p e r a t e d in cities w h e r e the
printers' unions were weak, and most quickly abandoned unionized
w h i t e m e n w h o w e r e u n w i l l i n g to print a n d b i n d b o o k s for p e n n i e s per
day. I n s t e a d , m a n y of the c h e a p publishers e m p l o y e d n o n u n i o n w o m e n
a n d s h a r e d a n d r e u s e d printing plates to set type. T h e p r i n t e r s ' unions
realized that w h i l e the lack of international copyright w a s protecting
the jobs of m o r e A m e r i c a n printers, the w o r k e r s w h o filled those jobs
w e r e the w r o n g k i n d — w o m e n instead of m e n . B y the late 1880s, the
u n i o n s flipped sides a n d j o i n e d the major p u b l i s h e r s a n d authors in
s u p p o r t of s o m e m e a s u r e of international copyright. In 1888, the Typo-
graphical U n i o n p a s s e d a resolution in favor of the bill then p e n d i n g in
C o n g r e s s . L o c a l chapters s o o n sent m e s s a g e s to their representatives in
favor of p a s s a g e . T h e d e b a t e lasted t h r o u g h the w i n t e r of 1 8 9 0 - 9 1 , b u t
the bill w a s finally p a s s e d b y b o t h h o u s e s in M a r c h of 1891 and
p r o m p t l y w a s signed b y President B e n j a m i n H a r r i s o n . 41

B y the e n d of the n i n e t e e n t h century, p u b l i s h e r s a n d authors h a d

taken great strides in fighting the r e p u b l i c a n principles that h a d in-
f o r m e d early A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w s a n d cases. A n d as the U n i t e d
States s t e p p e d f o r w a r d to assert itself as a n imperial p o w e r in the
w o r l d , M a r k T w a i n p r e p a r e d to a s s u m e the position o n c e h e l d b y N o a h
Webster, the c h a m p i o n of private publishing interests c l o a k e d in the
rhetoric of n o b l e p u b l i c service.

T H E M A N IN T H E W H I T E SUIT

M a r k T w a i n w a s a m a s t e r of the intricacies of c o p y r i g h t l a w a n d of the

p o w e r of " p r o p e r t y t a l k " f r o m early in his career as a p u b l i c figure. In
1875, William D e a n H o w e l l s a s k e d Twain to p u b l i s h his v i e w s o n the
n e e d for international c o p y r i g h t protection in the Atlantic Monthly.
Twain w r o t e b a c k to offer m u c h m o r e t h a n a simple article. H e pro-
p o s e d a n elaborate l o b b y i n g plan: " M y plan is t h i s — Y o u are to get Mr.
L o w e l l a n d Mr. L o n g f e l l o w to b e the first signers of m y c o p y r i g h t peti-
tion; y o u m u s t sign it yourself a n d get Mr. W h i t t i e r to do l i k e w i s e . "
Twain w o u l d then hire a p e r s o n to travel the c o u n t r y to gather the
 56 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

r e m a i n i n g signatures from a u t h o r s , m a k e a t h o u s a n d copies, a n d de-

liver t h e m p e r s o n a l l y to the p r e s i d e n t a n d m e m b e r s of C o n g r e s s . H e
w o u l d get the president to m e n t i o n the petition in a major s p e e c h , line
u p a p o w e r f u l s p o n s o r in e a c h h o u s e , a n d solidify the v o t e s before h e
p r o c e e d e d . " Y o u s e e , " h e w r o t e to H o w e l l s , " w h a t I w a n t to d r i v e into
the congressional m i n d is the s i m p l e fact that the m o r a l l a w is ' T h o u
shalt n o t s t e a l ' — n o matter w h a t E u r o p e m a y d o . " 4 2

O p p o n e n t s of s t a n d a r d i z e d copyright protection h a d a r g u e d that

A m e r i c a n readers c o u l d get c h e a p e r foreign w o r k s if t h e y w e r e n o t p r o -
tected b y international c o p y r i g h t , a n d that e v e n if the U n i t e d States of-
fered protection to foreign a u t h o r s , E u r o p e a n leaders w e r e unlikely to
reciprocate. W h e n l a w y e r a n d critic B r a n d e r M a t t h e w s w r o t e a n article
attacking other countries for a l l o w i n g piracy of A m e r i c a n authors,
T w a i n w r o t e a r e s p o n s e that p i n n e d the p r o b l e m o n the U.S. g o v e r n -
ment. 43
W h e n a congressional c o m m i t t e e c o n s i d e r e d the bill, Twain tes-
tified a n d said h e h o p e d " a d a y w o u l d c o m e w h e n , in the eyes of the
law, literary p r o p e r t y will b e as sacred as whiskey, or a n y other of the
necessaries of l i f e . " 44

T w a i n started s t u d y i n g c o p y r i g h t l a w s during the 1870s w h e n h e

lost substantial m o n e y to C a n a d i a n pirates w h o h a d recopied his w o r k
w i t h o u t offering h i m c o m p e n s a t i o n . T h r o u g h o u t the 1870s a n d 1880s,
T w a i n w o u l d s p e n d a w e e k e n d in C a n a d a to celebrate the publication
of another b o o k . H e w o u l d a p p l y for a n d receive a C a n a d i a n c o p y r i g h t
that w o u l d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y protect h i m t h r o u g h o u t the British E m p i r e
a n d its c o m m o n w e a l t h s , essentially the E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g w o r l d . Twain
w a s sensitive to all aspects of c o p y r i g h t protection b e c a u s e h e w a s a
p o p u l a r a n d successful author w h o suffered major setbacks as a less
than successful publisher. H e e v e n tried to h a v e " M a r k T w a i n " issued
as a t r a d e m a r k s o that w h e n his c o p y r i g h t s expired, the n e w publishers
c o u l d not use the p e n n a m e to sell his b o o k s . 45
W h e t h e r testifying before
C o n g r e s s or criticizing C h r i s t i a n S c i e n c e f o u n d e r M a r y B a k e r Eddy,
T w a i n f r e q u e n t l y a r g u e d that the a u t h o r d e s e r v e d full protection for the
w o r k h e did a n d often i n v o k e d the c o n c e p t of "originality." But Twain
the storyteller, o n several occasions, b o a s t e d of lifting stories a n d ideas
from others. A s h e w r o t e in a n article a b o u t international c o p y r i g h t in
1888: " B u t then, w e are all t h i e v e s . " 46

T w a i n w a s able to r e c o g n i z e the flaws in the c o n c e p t of the a u -

t o n o m o u s a u t h o r a n d all its pretensions. Twain w a s a p u b l i s h e r a n d a u -
thor, b u t h e also w a s a storyteller. Twain as author a n d Twain's w o r k s
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 57

are f o u n d a t i o n a l to all the conflicts that c o m p l i c a t e A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t

l a w : originality a n d g e n i u s ; p i r a c y a n d plagiarism; E u r o p e a n profes-
sional a u t h o r s h i p a n d African A m e r i c a n storytelling. A n d M a r k Twain
w a s o n e of the m o s t successful p r o m o t e r s of " p r o p e r t y t a l k " in A m e r i -
can copyright discourse.
S a m u e l C l e m e n s , in his dual role as C l e m e n s the b u s i n e s s m a n and
M a r k Twain the writer, relentlessly p u s h e d for m o r e than thirty years to
reform A m e r i c a n copyright l a w s . H e w r o t e m a g a z i n e articles a n d testi-
fied before C o n g r e s s . H e also c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h several congressional
leaders a b o u t the status of legislation. A s o n e of the l e a d i n g a u t h o r s in
the U n i t e d States, h e raised the strongest a n d often b e s t - i n f o r m e d voice
in the fight to protect a u t h o r s ' legal status a n d financial potential.
But T w a i n h a d another role that s e e m i n g l y contrasted w i t h his p u b -
lic stance as the c h a m p i o n of the authorial class: H e w a s a b o r r o w e r . T h e
w a y s M a r k Twain c o n s t r u c t e d his j o u r n a l i s m , fiction, a n d s p e a k i n g ca-
reers d e m y s t i f y the n o t i o n of authorial originality. M a n y of the devices,
characters, a n d events that h e u s e d in his fiction w e r e u n a p o l o g e t i c a l l y
lifted from others. Twain w a s n o t h u n g u p on originality. In his w o r k ,
he frequently a l l u d e d to other a u t h o r s a n d w o r k s , a n d e v e n to his o w n
p r e v i o u s w o r k s , to signify o n w h a t h a d c o m e before a n d to satirize
flaws in literature a n d society. M a r k Twain w a s firmly e m b e d d e d in sto-
rytelling tradition that lay o u t s i d e the r o m a n t i c a s s u m p t i o n s of author-
ial distinction that i n f o r m e d the p h i l o s o p h i c a l tenets of c o p y r i g h t law.
It w o u l d b e too easy to divide M a r k Twain the author-thief a n d S a m
C l e m e n s the protective b u s i n e s s m a n , publisher, a n d father along the fa-
miliar " t w i n s " m o d e l . M a n y Twain scholars h a v e settled o n this per-
sonal a n d professional d i c h o t o m y to explain c o m p l e x i t i e s a n d contra-
dictions in T w a i n ' s life a n d w o r k . H o w e v e r , e m p l o y i n g the " t w i n s "
idea, w h i l e literary a n d c o n v e n i e n t , is not a l w a y s the best w a y to ex-
plain complexity. C l e m e n s w a s a busy, contradictory, living h u m a n
b e i n g w h o traveled, r e a d , a n d c h a n g e d his v i e w s several t i m e s in his
lifetime. G r o w t h , contradiction, a n d c o m p l e x i t y w e r e the n o r m s for
Twain, as t h e y are for all active m i n d s . T h e y are n o t e n i g m a s that should
b e r e d u c e d to simplistic b i n a r i e s . 47

At first glance, Twain's t w o authorial p r e o c c u p a t i o n s — t e l l i n g oth-

e r s ' stories a n d e n s u r i n g h e w a s a d e q u a t e l y c o m p e n s a t e d for t h e m —
s e e m c o n t r a d i c t o r y a n d hypocritical. But if w e e x a m i n e his career
closely, a n d v i e w copyright w i t h a level of sophistication that a p -
p r o a c h e s his, w e will see that his authorial habits did n o t conflict w i t h
 58 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

b u s i n e s s interests. F o r Twain, his ordeals w i t h c o p y r i g h t w e r e n o t in-

ternal struggles b e t w e e n theft a n d originality, b e t w e e n art a n d c o m -
m e r c e . H e just c h a n g e d over t i m e a n d , like Walt W h i t m a n , did n o t fear
contradicting himself.

MINING A N D WRITING

Early in M a r k T w a i n ' s literary career, h e s h o w e d a deep interest in the

philosophical u n d e r p i n n i n g s of property law. In Roughing It (1870),
T w a i n w r o t e of an e d u c a t e d E a s t e r n e r w h o w a s serving as U.S. Attor-
n e y for the N e v a d a Territory, G e n e r a l B u n c o m b e . T h e locals s o u g h t a
w a y to s n u b the lawyer, so t h e y p l a y e d a practical joke o n h i m . A fellow
n a m e d D i c k H y d e h a d a r a n c h in W a s h o e district. O n e d a y h e rode up
to B u n c o m b e ' s office to ask for representation in a suit against T o m
M o r g a n , w h o o w n e d the r a n c h i m m e d i a t e l y a b o v e H y d e ' s o n a steep
hill. Twain w r o t e ,

And now the trouble was that one of those hated and dreaded land-
slides had come and slid Morgan's ranch, fences, cabins, cattle, barns
and everything down on top of his ranch and exactly covered up every
single vestige of his property, to a depth of about thirty-eight feet.
Morgan was in possession and refused to vacate the premises—and
said he was occupying his own cabin and not interfering with anyone
else's—and said the cabin was standing on the same dirt and same
ranch it had always stood on, and he would like to see anybody make
him vacate.

M o r g a n a r g u e d that s i n c e h e h a d stayed on his r a n c h as it slid d o w n the

hill, a n d H y d e h a d m o v e d to a v o i d the landslide, M o r g a n retained the
p r o p e r t y rights over it. B u n c o m b e t o o k the case, a r g u e d before the
court, a n d lost. T h e j u d g e ruled that H y d e certainly h a d b o t h the evi-
d e n c e a n d the l a w o n his side, yet " i t ill b e c o m e s u s , w o r m s as w e are,
to m e d d l e w i t h the decrees of H e a v e n . It pains m e that H e a v e n , in its
inscrutable w i s d o m , h a s seen fit to m o v e this d e f e n d a n t ' s r a n c h for a
p u r p o s e . . . . H e a v e n created the r a n c h e s a n d it is H e a v e n ' s prerogative
to rearrange t h e m , to e x p e r i m e n t w i t h t h e m , to shift t h e m a r o u n d at its
p l e a s u r e . " It t o o k t w o m o n t h s for B u n c o m b e to figure out h e h a d b e e n
h a d b y the t o w n s p e o p l e . 48
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 59

A l t h o u g h Twain p r e s e n t e d this story as a tall tale e x e c u t e d at the ex-

p e n s e of a n e d u c a t e d jurist, it raises s o m e i m p o r t a n t questions that res-
onate in b o t h real property a n d c o p y r i g h t theory: Is o w n e r s h i p a matter
of location or substance? D o e s D i c k H y d e o w n the l a n d b e c a u s e he
o w n e d the area w i t h i n t h o s e lines o n a m a p , or does M o r g a n o w n it b e -
cause h e o w n s the actual dirt a n d h o u s e that m a k e u p the p r o p e r t y ?
Similarly, d o e s a n a u t h o r forever " o w n " the string of w o r d s h e o r she
p r o d u c e s , o r d o e s it enter the p u b l i c d o m a i n as " c o m m o n s " — t o u s e p o -
litical science t e r m i n o l o g y — o n c e it reaches the eyes, m i n d s , a n d b o o k -
shelves of the reading public? C o p y r i g h t , like land in N e v a d a , is slip-
pery. P r o p e r t y rights in A m e r i c a are traditionally a m a t t e r of c o n v e n t i o n
a n d a g r e e m e n t , a n d not, as the j u d g e in the landslide case asserted, a
matter of divine decree or " n a t u r a l " law. W h i l e Twain e m p l o y e d a n a p -
peal to divinity as a target of ridicule in the landslide case, h e actually
g r e w to h o l d b y the e n d of his life o p i n i o n s a b o u t c o p y r i g h t l a w that
w e r e r e m a r k a b l y similar to the j u d g e ' s " n a t u r a l l a w " ruling a b o u t real
property.
But in the 1870s a n d 1880s, Twain c o n c e n t r a t e d o n the literary
trade i m b a l a n c e b e t w e e n E n g l a n d a n d the U n i t e d States. Therefore, his
thoughts o n c o p y r i g h t w e r e less c o n c e r n e d w i t h p h i l o s o p h y a n d m o r e
g r o u n d e d i n e c o n o m i c reality. W h i l e h e w a s concentrating o n establish-
ing a n d e x p a n d i n g his reputation, it b e c a m e clear to h i m that the ab-
sence of a reciprocal c o p y r i g h t treaty a m o n g C a n a d a , the U n i t e d King-
d o m , a n d the U n i t e d States h a d t w o v e r y deleterious effects: P o p u l a r
A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s , s u c h as himself, w o u l d lose m o n e y from c h e a p edi-
tions of their w o r k s pirated b y British a n d C a n a d i a n p u b l i s h e r s ; and
e m e r g i n g A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s w o u l d h a v e a difficult time a c h i e v i n g the
m a r k e t d e m a n d , reputation, a n d " s h e l f s p a c e " n e e d e d for success b e -
cause A m e r i c a n pirates s h o w e r e d the reading public w i t h c h e a p edi-
tions of British w o r k s .
A s Victor D o y n o s h o w s in Writing Huck Finn: Mark Twain's Creative
Process, m a n y pirated British w o r k s e n j o y e d a n e x p o n e n t i a l price a d -
v a n t a g e over c o m p a r a b l e A m e r i c a n w o r k s . W h i l e the first A m e r i c a n
edition of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer sold b y subscription for $2.75 in
1876, the C a n a d i a n pirated editions s o l d for 50 cents to $1 per copy.
M e a n w h i l e , readers h a d to c h o o s e b e t w e e n b u y i n g a n e m e r g i n g A m e r -
ican a u t h o r ' s n e w w o r k for at least 50 cents p e r copy, or Sir Walter
Scott's Ivanhoe for 10 to 15 cents. A m o n g the b o o k s y o u n g Tom S a w y e r
b e r a t e s H u c k l e b e r r y F i n n for failing to read at the e n d of Adventures of
 60 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

Huckleberry Finn are stories b y B a r o n v o n Trenck (10 cents p e r v o l u m e ) ,

a n d Cellini's Casanova (50 cents). Twain himself o w n e d a $1.50 anthol-
o g y of E u r o p e a n literature of the type Tom S a w y e r w o r s h i p e d . 49

This m a r k e t d i s c r e p a n c y — o r "inefficiency," as a n e c o n o m i s t m i g h t
call i t — w o r k e d to the d i s a d v a n t a g e of b o t h the A m e r i c a n author,
w h o s e b o o k s w e r e too e x p e n s i v e to c o m p e t e , a n d the British author,
w h o s a w n o return for his or h e r efforts f r o m c o n s u m e r s in the U n i t e d
States. Yet U.S. c o p y r i g h t policy intentionally e n f o r c e d the discrepancy
b e c a u s e the w i n n e r s of this g a m e w e r e t w o constituencies m o r e p o w e r -
ful than a u t h o r s o n either side of the Atlantic: A m e r i c a n readers a n d the
A m e r i c a n publishers w h o pirated British w o r k s . E v e n T w a i n benefited
from this s y s t e m as a reader, a n d expressed his m i x e d feelings in a
letter to H o w e l l s in 1880. " M y notions h a v e m i g h t i l y c h a n g e d , lately.
U n d e r this recent & b r a n d - n e w s y s t e m of p i r a c y in N e w York, this
c o u n t r y is b e i n g f l o o d e d w i t h the best of English literature at prices
w h i c h m a k e a p a c k a g e of w a t e r closet p a p e r s e e m a n 'edition de l u x e '
in c o m p a r i s o n , " Twain w r o t e . " I c a n b u y M a c a u l a y ' s History, 3 vols.,
b o u n d , for $1.25. C h a m b e r s ' s C y c l o p e d i a , 15 vols., cloth, for $7.25. (we
paid $ 6 0 ) , a n d o t h e r E n g l i s h c o p y r i g h t s in p r o p o r t i o n ; I c a n b u y a lot of
the great c o p y r i g h t classics, in paper, at from 3 cents to 30 cents apiece.
T h e s e things m u s t find their w a y into the v e r y kitchens a n d h o v e l s of
the country. A g e n e r a t i o n of this sort of thing o u g h t to m a k e this the
m o s t intelligent a n d the best-read n a t i o n in the w o r l d . " Twain closed
the letter w i t h a declaration that h e w a s against a c o p y r i g h t treaty with
E n g l a n d , despite his o p p o r t u n i t y to profit f r o m s u c h a contract.

Morally, this is all wrong—governmentally it is all right; for it is the

duty of governments—and families—to be selfish and look out simply
for their own. International copyright would benefit a few authors,
and a lot of American publishers, and be a profound detriment to
20,000,000 Americans; it would benefit a dozen American authors a
few dollars a year, & there an end. 50

Over the n e x t three years, as h e finished Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,

T w a i n g r e w to realize that A m e r i c a n s w e r e n o t b u y i n g the w o r k s of
Lord M a c a u l a y in a n y t h i n g a p p r o a c h i n g the n u m b e r s in w h i c h they
w e r e c o n s u m i n g the s u g a r y n o v e l s of Sir Walter Scott. Twain's frustra-
tion w i t h the choices of the A m e r i c a n reading p u b l i c , so w e l l articulated
in b o t h Life on the Mississippi a n d Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, m o v e d
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 61

h i m in full s u p p o r t of a level p l a y i n g field for writers a n d p u b l i s h e r s

t h r o u g h o u t the English-reading w o r l d . A s h e f o u n d e d his publishing
h o u s e a n d studied the intricacies of the l a w further, T w a i n p u s h e d h i m -
self to the forefront of the m o v e m e n t for international c o p y r i g h t during
the 1880s.
Twain's a r g u m e n t s for a n international c o p y r i g h t treaty w e r e moti-
v a t e d b y his desire to see A m e r i c a n literature t a k e n seriously b y — i f n o
o n e e l s e — A m e r i c a n readers. A s Twain w r o t e in an article in Century
Magazine in 1886:

The statistics of any public library will show that of every hundred
books read by our people, about seventy are novels—and nine-tenths
of them foreign ones. They fill the imagination with an unhealthy fas-
cination with foreign life, with its dukes and earls and kings, its fuss
and feathers, its graceful immoralities, its sugar-coated injustices and
oppressions; and this fascination breeds a more or less pronounced
dissatisfaction with our country and form of government, and con-
tempt for our republican commonplaces and simplicities; it also
breeds a longing for something "better" which presently crops out in
the diseased shams and imitations of the ideal foreign spectacle:
Hence the "dude."

Twain's o p e n letter issued a blunt e n o u g h w a r n i n g that C o n g r e s s w a s

not in fact serving the interests of its p e o p l e b y k e e p i n g foreign w o r k s
cheap: " T h u s w e h a v e this curious spectacle: A m e r i c a n s t a t e s m e n glo-
rifying A m e r i c a n nationality, teaching it, p r e a c h i n g it, urging it, build-
ing it u p — w i t h their m o u t h s ; a n d u n d e r m i n i n g it a n d pulling it d o w n
with their a c t s . " 5 1

W h e n T w a i n testified before a S e n a t e c o m m i t t e e later in 1886, he

b a l k e d at e n d o r s i n g the p a r t i c u l a r international c o p y r i g h t bill in q u e s -
tion b e c a u s e h e t h o u g h t it h a r s h l y treated British publishers, m a n y of
w h o m h a d treated h i m w e l l , a n d unjustly a b s o l v e d the A m e r i c a n sys-
tem. B y this time, h e h a d g r o w n tired of political finger-pointing b e -
t w e e n the t w o n a t i o n s , w h e n b o t h w e r e responsible for the m a s s i v e
price differences. In addition, Twain h a d g r o w n s o m e w h a t pleased with
British c o p y r i g h t l a w b e c a u s e it afforded longer protection for w o r k s
a n d a l l o w e d A m e r i c a n s to gain protection b y traveling to E n g l a n d
during the publication. Twain's biggest p r o b l e m w i t h the 1886 c o p y -
right p r o p o s a l , k n o w n as the H a w l e y Bill, w a s that it w o u l d p u n i s h
 62 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

publishers w h o h a d b e e n reprinting British w o r k s cheaply, a n d p r o b a -

b l y close t h e m d o w n , laying off m a n y printers. H e u r g e d a protection-
ist a m e n d m e n t that w o u l d require a foreign w o r k to b e p r i n t e d in an
A m e r i c a n plant to receive A m e r i c a n copyright. H i s objections w e r e
c o m p l e x a n d technical, b u t h e did n o t w a v e r in his call for reciprocal
protection a m o n g E n g l a n d , C a n a d a , a n d the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 52

C o n g r e s s a g r e e d to international c o p y r i g h t provisions in 1891, with

a bill that Twain e n d o r s e d wholeheartedly. " I f w e c a n e v e r get this thing
t h r o u g h C o n g r e s s , w e can try m a k i n g copyright p e r p e t u a l , s o m e day,"
C l e m e n s w r o t e to H o w e l l s . L e n g t h e n i n g the duration of c o p y r i g h t p r o -
tection b e c a m e his political p a s s i o n . 53
O v e r the next n i n e t e e n years,
T w a i n w o u l d rely o n k n o w l e d g e , e x p e r i e n c e , a n d self-interest derived
from his multiple roles as author, publisher, a n d political c o m m e n t a t o r .
A s a partner in the Charles L. Webster a n d C o m p a n y p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e ,
T w a i n h a d m a d e m o n e y issuing the m e m o i r s of f o r m e r President U l y s -
ses S. Grant. H e p r o m p t l y lost m o n e y investing in the P a i g e typeset-
ting m a c h i n e . 54
E v e n if h e d i d n ' t earn m u c h o n the final b a l a n c e sheet
t h r o u g h those e x p e r i e n c e s , Twain c l a i m e d h e learned m u c h . H e w r o t e
in 1906: " A m a n m u s t b e b o t h a u t h o r a n d publisher, a n d e x p e r i e n c e d in
the scorching griefs a n d trials of b o t h industries, before h e is c o m p e t e n t
to g o before a c o p y r i g h t c o m m i t t e e of P a r l i a m e n t or C o n g r e s s a n d af-
ford it i n f o r m a t i o n of a n y c o n s i d e r a b l e v a l u e . " 5 5

BORROWER.THIEF, O R TRANSLATOR?

T w a i n w a s clearly willing to a p p e a l to the aesthetic values of original-

ity a n d a u t h o r s h i p w h e n it suited h i m , as it did w i t h his s u p p o r t of
stronger copyright laws. Twain's real attitudes t o w a r d a u t h o r s h i p a n d
originality w e r e — a s w i t h m o s t of his t h o u g h t — c o m p l e x a n d s o m e -
times contradictory. H i s public stance s e e m s to validate the romantic
a n d i m p e r i a l s e n s e of a u t h o r s h i p . H i s critical v o i c e fluctuates b e t w e e n
a defense a n d a dismissal of r o m a n t i c a u t h o r s h i p . Yet in his o w n w o r k ,
h e s h o w s n o q u a l m s a b o u t b o r r o w i n g b o t h style a n d s u b s t a n c e from
other storytellers.
In his 1907 edition of Christian Science, Twain ridiculed the author-
ship of M a r y B a k e r E d d y for h e r b o o k Science and Health. "It m a n y be
that there is e v i d e n c e s o m e w h e r e — a s it has b e e n c l a i m e d — t h a t M r s .
E d d y has c h a r g e d u p o n the D e i t y the verbal a u t h o r s h i p of Science and
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 63

Health. But if s h e e v e r m a d e that c h a r g e , s h e h a s w i t h d r a w n it (as it

s e e m s to m e ) , a n d in the m o s t f o r m a l a n d unqualified w a y s , " Twain
wrote. E d d y h a d written in h e r a u t o b i o g r a p h y that s h e h a d s u e d to pro-
tect her c o p y r i g h t o n the b o o k .

Thus it is plain that she did not plead that the Deity was the (verbal)
author; for if she had done that, she would have lost her case, and with
rude promptness. It was in the old days before the Berne Convention
and before passage of our amended law of 1891, and the court would
have quoted the following stern clause from the existing statute and
frowned her out of the place: "No foreigner can acquire a copyright in
the United States." 56

Twain q u o t e d a n o t h e r b o o k a b o u t Christian Science in w h i c h E d d y

claimed s h e w a s m e r e l y a " s c r i b e " for G o d ' s w o r d s . "A scribe is merely
a p e r s o n w h o w r i t e s . H e m a y b e a copyist, h e m a y b e a n a m a n u e n s i s ,
he m a y b e a writer of originals, a n d furnish b o t h the l a n g u a g e a n d the
i d e a s . " T w a i n a g a i n a p p e a l e d to E d d y ' s o w n w o r d s to see w h i c h of
these f o r m s of scribe s h e c l a i m e d to be.

If we allow that this present scribe was setting down the "harmonies
of Heaven"—and certainly that seems to be the case—then there was
only one way to do that I can think of: listen to the music and put down
the notes one after another as they fell. In that case Mrs. Eddy did not
invent the tune, she only entered it on paper. Therefore—dropping the
metaphor—she was merely an amanuensis, and furnished neither the
language of Science and Health nor the ideas.

Twain c o n c l u d e d , " t h e D e i t y w a s the a u t h o r of the w h o l e b o o k , and

M r s . E d d y m e r e l y His t e l e p h o n e a n d s t e n o g r a p h e r . " 57

So for Twain, in the M a r y B a k e r E d d y case at least, the a u t h o r is the

o n e w h o furnishes ideas. T h e a u t h o r is the originator w h o deserves the
protection for w h i c h h e fought. T w a i n a c c u s e d E d d y of p l a y i n g s o m e -
o n e else's p a r t a n d a p p e a l i n g to the legal codification of a u t h o r s h i p for
financial r e w a r d . But h e c o u l d just as easily h a v e a r g u e d the other side.
A s h e w r o t e in a n article a b o u t international copyright in 1 8 8 8 , " B u t
then, w e are all t h i e v e s . " 58

T h r o u g h o u t her life, Twain's g o o d friend H e l e n Keller w a s p l a g u e d

b y accusations of p l a g i a r i s m . Twain w a s q u i c k to c o m f o r t a n d d e f e n d
 64 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

her. In a 1903 letter to Keller, Twain revealed the o t h e r side of his n o -

tions of originality a n d authorship w h e n h e discussed the n a t u r e of
plagiarism:

Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and
grotesque was that "plagiarism" farce! As if there was much of any-
thing in any human utterance, oral or written except plagiarism. The
kernel, the soul—let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the
actual and valuable material of all human utterances—is plagiarism.
For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and uncon-
sciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the
garnerer with a pride and satisfaction bom of the superstition that he
originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them
anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and
moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in charac-
teristics of phrasing. 59

In this letter to Keller, T w a i n is d e m y s t i f y i n g the v e r y ideal of author-

ship that h e w o u l d a p p l a u d b e f o r e C o n g r e s s three years later. A major
difference, of course, is that n o m o n e y is at stake w h e n h e is m e r e l y
m u s i n g a b o u t the n a t u r e of originality. A n o t h e r difference m i g h t b e that
the w o r k in q u e s t i o n in this letter is not Twain's, so h e is less j u d g m e n -
tal a b o u t accusations of plagiarism a n d " t h e f t . " But later in the s a m e let-
ter, Twain cited a h u m o r o u s e x a m p l e a b o u t The Innocents Abroad in
w h i c h h e c o n f e s s e d to excessive influence, if n o t outright plagiarism:

In 1866 I read Dr. Holmes' poems, in the Sandwich Islands. A year and
a half later I stole his dictation, without knowing it, and used it to ded-
icate my Innocents Abroad with. Then years afterwards I was talking
with Dr. Holmes about it. He was not an ignorant ass—no, not he: he
was not a collection of decayed human turnips, like your "plagiarism
court;" and so when I said, "I know now where I stole it, but whom did
you steal it from," he said, "I don't remember, I only know I stole it
from somebody, because I have never originated altogether myself,
nor met anybody who h a d . " 60

In this letter to Keller, T w a i n e x p l o r e d s o m e ideas that s e e m r e m a r k a b l y

p o s t m o d e r n : H e ascribed a m o s a i c quality to creativity a n d described
the m u l t i p l e v o i c e s that inform a text. " N o d o u b t w e are constantly lit-
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 65

tering o u r literature w i t h disconnected sentences b o r r o w e d f r o m b o o k s

at s o m e u n r e m e m b e r e d t i m e , a n d n o w i m a g i n e d to b e o u r o w n , " he
wrote. This c o u l d just as easily describe a m o s a i c of s a m p l e s in rap
m u s i c from the 1990s. Twain also w r o t e to Keller a b o u t p e r h a p s the
strongest theoretical claim for the démystification of the a u t o n o m o u s
author:

When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten cen-
turies and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really
some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify.
It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and
we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand
men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a
photograph, or a telephone, or any other important thing—and the
last man gets the credit and we forget the others. 61

Twain's o w n e x p l a n a t i o n for the c o n c e r n over originality a n d influence

w a s that those w h o w r i t e a n d claim creative superiority are merely
vain. " T h e s e object lessons s h o u l d teach us that n i n e t y - n i n e parts of all
things that p r o c e e d from the intellect are p l a g i a r i s m s , p u r e a n d s i m p l e , "
Twain w r o t e to Keller. " A n d the lesson o u g h t to m a k e us m o d e s t . But
n o t h i n g c a n do t h a t . " 62

W h i l e testifying or w r i t i n g o n copyright, T w a i n s e e m e d to stand

firmly in the r o m a n t i c s t r e a m of a u t h o r s h i p , w i t h all its trappings of
originality a n d o w n e r s h i p a n d creativity. B u t M a r k T w a i n the writer
s w a m in a different river: o n e that s w i r l e d a r o u n d a n d c h u r n e d every-
thing that fell in so it c a m e out in a different a n d a m a z i n g order. M a r k
Twain at w o r k w a s basically a n A m e r i c a n storyteller. A n d , in the tradi-
tion of A m e r i c a n storytelling, Twain w a s i n f o r m e d b y b o t h b l a c k and
w h i t e , oral a n d written, s o u t h e r n a n d n o r t h e r n aesthetics. Originality
a n d a u t h o r s h i p p l a y a m u c h different role in oral traditions, a n d there-
fore p l a y e d a c o m p l e x role in Twain's creative process.
In the Atlantic Monthly in N o v e m b e r of 1874, Twain p u b l i s h e d an
account h e entitled " A True Story, R e p e a t e d W o r d for W o r d as I H e a r d
It." In the piece, T w a i n asks a q u e s t i o n of " A u n t R a c h e l , " a servant in
the s u m m e r h o u s e his f a m i l y e n j o y e d in E l m i r a , N e w York: " A u n t
Rachel, h o w is it that y o u ' v e lived sixty years a n d n e v e r h a d a n y trou-
b l e ? " A u n t R a c h e l w a s really M a r y A n n C o r d , the c o o k at Q u a r r y F a r m
a n d a f o r m e r slave. H e r r e s p o n s e , rendered in dialect, f o r m s m o s t of the
 66 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

rest of the text of the piece. It is a h a r r o w i n g story of t r a g e d y a n d dig-

nity. " A u n t R a c h e l " lost all s e v e n of her children as t h e y w e r e sold a w a y
from her. In the e n d , o n e of her sons returned to her after r u n n i n g away.
She c o n c l u d e s , " O h , n o , M i s t o C , I h a i n ' t h a d n o trouble. A n ' n o
j o y ! " In the entire piece, o n l y a smattering of the text is in M a r k Twain's
voice. T h e rest m i g h t well h a v e b e e n transcribed precisely b y Twain, as
h e claims i n the title. W h o is the a u t h o r of the piece? C o p y r i g h t l a w af-
fected o n l y expressions fixed in print. So legally, C o r d h a d n o legal
claim to a u t h o r s h i p . B u t it w a s h e r e x p e r i e n c e , her story, h e r ideas, a n d
her e x p r e s s i o n that m a d e the piece possible a n d interesting. Twain w a s
m e r e l y a scribe, as M a r y B a k e r E d d y w a s for G o d . Yet b y the t i m e Twain
p u b l i s h e d the piece in the Atlantic, h e h a d it c o p y r i g h t e d in his o w n
n a m e . Atlantic editor William D e a n H o w e l l s p r a i s e d Twain for his ac-
curate p o r t r a y a l of African A m e r i c a n s p e e c h , a n d p a i d Twain the high-
est rate the m a g a z i n e h a d e v e r offered. Twain r e p u b l i s h e d "A True
S t o r y " in Sketches, New and Old in 1 8 7 5 . Twain's e x p e r i e n c e putting
M a r y A n n C o r d ' s v o i c e o n paper, along w i t h a similar piece in w h i c h h e
i n t r o d u c e d a y o u n g b o y h e called " s o c i a b l e J i m m y , " h e l p e d h i m train
himself for his longest a n d m o s t significant dialect w o r k , Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn. 63

In m a n y w a y s , Twain serves as a revolving d o o r in the e x c h a n g e of

ideas b e t w e e n oral a n d w r i t t e n traditions. B r o u g h t u p listening to black
storytellers, h e s p e n t years trying to m a s t e r their rhetorical skills. In his
essay " H o w to Tell a Story," Twain c l a i m e d , " I o n l y k n o w h o w a story
o u g h t to b e told, for I h a v e b e e n a l m o s t daily in the c o m p a n y of the
m o s t expert storytellers for m a n y y e a r s . " Twain t h e n e x p l a i n e d the dif-
ferences b e t w e e n British w i t a n d A m e r i c a n h u m o r , a n d h o w A m e r i c a n
h u m o r requires a m u c h defter s e n s e of delivery. H e also c h a m p i o n e d
the A m e r i c a n storyteller as a n " a r t i s t . " T h e p a r a d i g m of his story-telling
lesson is o n e h e h e a r d as a b o y from a n old b l a c k m a n , U n c l e D a n ' l ,
called " T h e G o l d e n A r m . " H e w o u l d frequently tell this story o n his
m o n e y m a k i n g lecture circuits, getting p a i d as a performer, n o t a n a u -
thor. T w a i n did w r i t e out " T h e G o l d e n A r m " in " H o w to Tell a S t o r y , "
a n d , of course, c o p y r i g h t e d a n d m a d e m o n e y from i t . 64
T w a i n ' s fasci-
n a t i o n w i t h orality a n d storytelling expressed itself in his efforts to
record the oral m e t h o d s in t w o d i m e n s i o n s . Twain w r o t e a fan letter to
fellow recorder Joel C h a n d l e r H a r r i s in w h i c h h e d u b b e d Harris the
m a s t e r translator. Twain also c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t the futility of recording
a well-told story in p r i n t . 65
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 67

Early in his career, in N e v a d a a n d California, M a r k Twain m a s t e r e d

telling b o t h his o w n a n d o t h e r p e o p l e ' s stories in a better w a y — u s u a l l y
funnier. A s h e j o i n e d h a u g h t y literary circles in H a r t f o r d a n d N e w York
City, T w a i n m o v e d from b e i n g a " m e r e " storyteller to b e i n g a major a u -
thor. H e w a s doing, writing, a n d investing in " n e w t h i n g s . " S i m u l t a n e -
ously, the U n i t e d States w a s b e c o m i n g m o r e literate a n d m o r e literary.
A s the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y d a w n e d , T w a i n ' s c h a n g e s w o u l d b e c o m e
America's changes.
Like Elvis, T w a i n is o p e n to accusations of blatant theft of Afri-
can A m e r i c a n m o d e s of expression, a n idea w o n d e r f u l l y ironic in the
context of his time, w h e n m a n y t h o u g h t of b l a c k s as m e r e l y artistic
m o c k i n g b i r d s . But, a g a i n like Elvis, Twain p l a y e d a m o r e c o m p l e x role.
Twain is a t r a n s m i s s i o n figure. H e b r o u g h t the richness of storytelling
to a n increasingly f r a g m e n t e d reading p u b l i c . H e b r o u g h t the S o u t h
n o r t h a n d the West east. M o s t i m p o r t a n t , his style e n r i c h e d b o t h black
a n d w h i t e literary traditions. R a l p h Ellison credited T w a i n w i t h pre-
senting the m o s t c o m p e l l i n g portrait of h o w w h i t e s see blacks in Ad-
ventures of Huckleberry Finn. 66
T h e v o i c e s h e g a v e to H u c k a n d J i m
w o u l d influence writers for a century. To d o u b l e that complexity, his ef-
forts to c h a m p i o n professional a u t h o r s h i p a n d e x t e n d copyright pro-
tection w o u l d d e t e r m i n e the n a t u r e of m u c h of A m e r i c a n creativity just
as m u c h as H u c k F i n n did.

PIRACY O R PLAGIARISM?

We are still stuck w i t h a complication, if n o t a contradiction. Twain

clearly a n d loudly p r o t e s t e d the u n a u t h o r i z e d c o p y i n g of his w o r k s in
E n g l a n d a n d C a n a d a . T h e m o n e y h e lost h a u n t e d h i m for y e a r s . Yet
Twain s e e m e d willing to o v e r l o o k , forgive, or e v e n w i n k at his a n d oth-
e r s ' habits of b o r r o w i n g stories from others. Was T w a i n a h y p o c r i t e ?
N o , h e w a s just a w a r e of the distinction b e t w e e n p i r a c y a n d plagiarism.
For Twain, p i r a c y w a s theft. P l a g i a r i s m w a s b a d m a n n e r s . In a case of
piracy, a p r o d u c t is sold in its entirety (usually u n d e r false p r e t e n s e s ) ,
a n d the p r o d u c e r of the original p r o d u c t receives n o c o m p e n s a t i o n for
his or her w o r k . P i r a c y is the violation of the entire b o d y of a w o r k , and
thus o b v i o u s l y a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n of specific expression. Piracy is a n of-
fense created b y the n o t i o n of copyright. It c o u l d n o t exist as a concept
w i t h o u t the g r a n t e d m o n o p o l y of copyright that it violates. Plagiarism
 68 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

is m u c h older a n d m o r e c o m p l e x . It c o m e s in m a n y f o r m s . A writer can

u s e a small portion of a n o t h e r ' s w o r k , yet fail to credit the s o u r c e , a n d
b e a c c u s e d of plagiarism. At its e x t r e m e , a u t h o r s c a n use data that an-
other c o m p i l e d , research another did, a n d f r a u d u l e n t l y p o r t r a y the
w o r k as their o w n . P l a g i a r i s m is m o r e often t h a n n o t a n u n r e q u e s t e d
a n d uncredited use of a n o t h e r ' s ideas. B e c a u s e p l a g i a r i s m is m o r e
generally u n d e r s t o o d as " i d e a t h e f t , " it is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y — p e r h a p s
r a r e l y — a violation of copyright law. If a film studio files suit against a
p e r s o n w h o h a s m a d e a n d sold u n a u t h o r i z e d v i d e o t a p e s of o n e of its
films, it is fighting piracy. If the studio tries to stifle a n o t h e r studio's ef-
forts to m a k e a n e w v e r s i o n of a similar story, it is fighting s o m e t h i n g
closer to plagiarism. T h e studio w o u l d b e protecting ideas, a n d m u s t
rely o n threats, p u b l i c pressure, or legal intimidation to prevent the pla-
giarism. If a screenwriter pitches a n idea to a studio, b u t is rejected, only
to find a similar tale told o n film, s h e c a n c o m p l a i n of i d e a theft, but n o t
necessarily a c o p y r i g h t violation. T w a i n f o u g h t C a n a d i a n p u b l i s h e r s
w h o u n d e r s o l d his o w n p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e ' s editions of his b o o k s , b u t
c o u l d issue n o claim that the stories b e h i n d The Prince and the Pauper or
" T h e C e l e b r a t e d J u m p i n g F r o g of C a l a v e r a s C o u n t y " w e r e his property.
A n d as should b e clear, Twain w a s a r a m p a n t plagiarist, as w e c o m -
m o n l y u n d e r s t a n d the term. P e r h a p s w e c a n c o n s i d e r copyright in-
f r i n g e m e n t to b e a specific, illegal subset of the w i d e array of ethical of-
fenses called plagiarism.
T h a t ' s n o t to a r g u e that n o n i n f r i n g i n g f o r m s of p l a g i a r i s m a r e n o t
objectionable. T h e y are just not obviously actionable. S o m e b a d man-
ners are v e r y b a d . In s c i e n c e , m e d i c i n e , a n d the h u m a n i t i e s , p l a g i a -
r i s m is a p r o f e s s i o n a l p r o b l e m that c a n h a r m t h o s e w h o a c t u a l l y did
the w o r k . It c a n d e n y t h e o r i g i n a t o r s credit, f a m e , p r o f e s s i o n a l a d -
v a n c e m e n t , a n d h o n o r . It c a n b e a sign of s o m e t h i n g w o r s e t h a n b a d
m a n n e r s in t h e m i n d of the plagiarist. P l a g i a r i s m c a n b e so h a b i t u a l
that it r e s e m b l e s a p a t h o l o g y . B u t it's u s u a l l y n o t . S t e a l i n g a j o k e a n d
retelling a s t o r y are h a r d l y v i o l a t i o n s of g r a v i t y e q u a l to s i g n i n g o n e ' s
n a m e to a n o t h e r ' s c a n c e r r e s e a r c h . A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y in t h e late t w e n -
tieth c e n t u r y g r e w so sensitive to a c c u s a t i o n s of p l a g i a r i s m that c o m -
p a n i e s d e v e l o p e d c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s to s c a n d o c u m e n t s for s i m i l a r
sentence constructions and vocabulary. Citation and originality have
b e c o m e s u c h a n a b s u r d p r e o c c u p a t i o n that h a r d l y a m a j o r political
c a m p a i g n g o e s b y w i t h o u t o n e c a n d i d a t e a c c u s i n g a n o t h e r of " s t e a l -
ing m y i d e a s . " A c c u s a t i o n s of p l a g i a r i s m h a v e b e c o m e the favorite
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 69

w e a p o n of t h o s e w h o w i s h to a t t a c k political c o l u m n i s t s , a n d h u m o r -
ous c o l u m n i s t s a r e t h e easiest t a r g e t s . O b v i o u s l y , a c c u s a t i o n s of pla-
g i a r i s m are r a r e — a l m o s t u n i m a g i n a b l e — w i t h i n cultural e x p r e s s i o n s
that a r e oral i n n a t u r e , s u c h as s t o r y t e l l i n g , b l u e s , a n d j a z z . This m a y
b e w h y T w a i n d i s m i s s e d s u c h talk in his o w n day. H o w c o u l d T w a i n
k e e p t r a c k of all the stories h e h e a r d as a child? H o w c o u l d h e stop
h i m s e l f f r o m w r i t i n g d o w n a n d selling the b e s t stories h e h e a r d from
M a r y A n n C o r d a n d U n c l e D a n ' l ? H o w c o u l d H e l e n K e l l e r b e ex-
p e c t e d to create a string of f o o t n o t e s , or e v e n r e m e m b e r her s o u r c e s ,
for h e r o w n w r i t i n g ? A s w e h a v e a d o p t e d t h e c o n c e r n s of p r o f e s s i o n -
alized w r i t i n g to t h e c o m m o n c o m m e r c e of i d e a s a n d e x p r e s s i o n s , w e
h a v e lost s i g h t o f t h e crucial distinctions o n w h i c h T w a i n r e s t e d his
creative h a b i t s a n d c a r e e r . 67

MARK TWAIN'S DIALOGUE O N COPYRIGHT

A r e c e n t l y r e e x a m i n e d T w a i n m a n u s c r i p t s h o w s t h e a u t h o r experi-
m e n t i n g w i t h s e v e r a l a r g u m e n t s in f a v o r of e x t e n d i n g the t e r m of
c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n f o r a u t h o r s in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . This m a n u -
script, w r i t t e n i n K a l t e n l e u t g e b e n , A u s t r i a , in 1 8 9 8 , l a y l a r g e l y ig-
n o r e d in t h e M a r k T w a i n P a p e r s at the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at
B e r k e l e y until M a r c h 1997. T h e m a n u s c r i p t is w r i t t e n in the f o r m of a
S o c r a t i c d i a l o g u e . In it, T w a i n r e h e a r s e d h i s c o p y r i g h t " a c t " a n d ar-
r i v e d at his m o s t p e r s u a s i v e — a n d t r i c k y — s c r i p t for his p u b l i c p r o -
n o u n c e m e n t s o n c o p y r i g h t . In a larger s e n s e , this m a n u s c r i p t repre-
sents a m a j o r m o v e w i t h i n T w a i n ' s intellectual j o u r n e y s : f r o m s t o r y -
teller to political essayist; f r o m w e s t e r n t e n d e r f o o t to i n t e r n a t i o n a l
m a n of letters; f r o m p o e t to p h i l o s o p h e r . I n 1884, T w a i n f i n i s h e d his
v e r s i o n of the Odyssey, i n the g u i s e of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
T h r o u g h H u c k F i n n , T w a i n a s s u m e d t h e role of the A m e r i c a n H o m e r ,
r e n d e r i n g t h e repetition a n d r e v i s i o n of the A m e r i c a n o r a l tradition
into p r i n t , trying his b e s t to retain t h e f r e s h n e s s , r i c h n e s s , irony, and
flavor of the s p e a k e r l y text. B u t a s h e t h r u s t h i m s e l f into the often
frustrating c o p y r i g h t d e b a t e s t h r o u g h the late 1880s a n d 1 8 9 0 s , T w a i n
r e c o g n i z e d the difficulties a h u m o r i s t or s t o r y t e l l e r m i g h t e n c o u n t e r
w h i l e t r y i n g to m a k e s e r i o u s p o i n t s . A f t e r all, P l a t o h a d e x c l u d e d the
f o l l o w e r s of H o m e r f r o m h i s R e p u b l i c . So in 1 8 9 8 , T w a i n p u t a s i d e his
H o m e r i c p r e t e n t i o n s a n d i n s t e a d g e n e r a t e d a n i m i t a t i o n of a stilted
 70 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

P l a t o n i c n a r r a t i v e to o u t l i n e his p u b l i c p h i l o s o p h i e s . T w a i n e m p l o y e d
a S o c r a t i c d i a l o g u e to p e t i t i o n for n a t u r a l i z a t i o n in P l a t o ' s R e p u b l i c . 68

T w a i n called the piece " T h e G r e a t R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d . " It con-

tains a l m o s t s e v e n t h o u s a n d w o r d s a n d fills fifty-nine h a n d w r i t t e n
p a g e s . A l t h o u g h T w a i n w a s active a n d v o c a l t h r o u g h o u t his profes-
sional career o n c o p y r i g h t issues, " T h e G r e a t R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d "
is his o n l y e x t e n d e d dissertation o n c o p y r i g h t theory. H i s frequent let-
ters to friends a n d c o n g r e s s m e n a n d his brief ejaculations a b o u t w h a t
h e c o n s i d e r e d to b e the inherent unfairness of A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w
form a n interesting but u l t i m a t e l y u n c o h e s i v e picture of Twain's evolv-
ing t h o u g h t s on the issue. This 1898 dialogue fills m a n y g a p s in Twain's
copyright discourse a n d a n s w e r s s o m e questions about h o w Twain ar-
rived at his conclusions a n d c h o s e his tactics.
A l t h o u g h h e c o m p o s e d this dialogue i n his s t u d y in the A u s t r i a n
A l p s just as the British P a r l i a m e n t took u p the issue of e x t e n d i n g the
duration of c o p y r i g h t protection, h e c h o s e n o t to p u b l i s h it in its entire
form d u r i n g his lifetime. H e scribbled " N e v e r P u b l i s h e d — S L C [ S a m u e l
L. C l e m e n s ] " at the t o p of the first p a g e . * 6 9
Twain d i d p u b l i s h another
d i a l o g u e o n c o p y r i g h t reform in the North American Review in 1905, a n d
it loosely b o r r o w e d s o m e of the a r g u m e n t s e x p l o r e d i n " T h e Great R e -
p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d . " H o w e v e r , it also c o n t a i n e d m a n y other p a s -
sages that Twain researched a n d w r o t e specifically for that a r t i c l e . 70
Ul-
timately, T w a i n u s e d " T h e Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d " as an exer-
cise that w o u l d yield his m o s t n o t e d a n d significant s t a t e m e n t s on
copyright, his t e s t i m o n y before the C o n g r e s s i o n a l J o i n t C o m m i t t e e s on
Patents in D e c e m b e r of 1 9 0 6 . 71

T h r o u g h " T h e Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d , " Twain articulated a

w a y to p u s h his rather " u n - A m e r i c a n " ideas a b o u t c o p y r i g h t in dis-
tinctly " A m e r i c a n " l a n g u a g e b y trying to a n s w e r these questions for
himself: B y w h a t right does the p u b l i c claim o w n e r s h i p of the p r o d u c t s
of a n a u t h o r ' s w o r k after a certain p e r i o d of time? H o w is A m e r i c a n cul-
ture s e r v e d b y limiting the a u t h o r ' s c l a i m ? C o u l d a n y o n e t h i n k u p a
better s y s t e m that w o u l d serve the p u b l i c interest a n d r e w a r d a u t h o r s
at the s a m e time? T h e s e are issues that p r e o c c u p i e d M a r k Twain
t h r o u g h o u t his adult life. Twain w a s m o r e t h a n fascinated b y the theory
a n d practice of copyright; h e w a s financially interested as w e l l . H e w a s
a successful writer a n d lecturer, b u t a failed publisher. H e h a d been
cheated b y C a n a d i a n a n d British " p i r a t e s " w h o h a d p u b l i s h e d u n a u -
thorized versions of his w o r k a n d u n d e r s o l d his p u b l i s h e r s ' p r i c e s . 72
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 71

A s w e h a v e seen, Twain h a d p l a y e d an integral p a r t in organizing

authors a n d publishers to successfully fight for a n A n g l o - A m e r i c a n
copyright a g r e e m e n t in 1891 that protected a u t h o r s t h r o u g h o u t the
English-reading w o r l d . P l e a s e d w i t h the victory a u t h o r s h a d a c h i e v e d
internationally, Twain looked to alter the d o m e s t i c policy t o w a r d his
a d v a n t a g e . F o r the last t w o d e c a d e s of his life h e set a b o u t trying to
l e n g t h e n the duration of c o p y r i g h t protection. In T w a i n ' s day, a n a u t h o r
controlled the rights to his or h e r w o r k for twenty-eight y e a r s , and
could a p p l y to r e n e w the c o p y r i g h t for a n o t h e r fourteen years. H o w -
ever, s u r v i v o r s c o u l d n o t a p p l y for the fourteen-year extension. This
c o n c e r n e d Twain b e c a u s e h e feared his d a u g h t e r s w o u l d n o t b e able to
live as c o m f o r t a b l y as t h e y h a d in their y o u t h w i t h o u t his royalties.
Twain testified before a 1906 congressional c o m m i t t e e in s u p p o r t of a
bill that w o u l d h a v e e x t e n d e d the duration of protection to the lifetime
of the a u t h o r p l u s fifty y e a r s . H o w e v e r , as " T h e Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t
S t a n d " s h o w s , Twain actually favored p e r p e t u a l c o p y r i g h t protection
that w o u l d r e w a r d his heirs or estate forever.
" T h e Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d " is a d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n a sena-
tor a n d a " W i s d o m S e e k e r , " w h o is Twain himself. T h e senator h o l d s the
classic A m e r i c a n republican o p i n i o n that a b o o k s h o u l d enter the p u b -
lic d o m a i n after the l a w h a s g r a n t e d its a u t h o r a reasonable m o n o p o l y
on its sale a n d distribution. T h e t h e o r y b e h i n d that policy, as expressed
in the U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d e v e r y major c o p y r i g h t l a w e n a c t e d b y Con-
gress until 1998, is that the p u b l i c will benefit f r o m c h e a p editions of the
best b o o k s , yet a u t h o r s will still h a v e a n incentive to p r o d u c e n e w
b o o k s . This e c o n o m i c a r g u m e n t , as expressed b y political p h i l o s o p h e r s
a n d p o l i c y m a k e r s f r o m A d a m S m i t h to J a m e s M a d i s o n to m o s t of
Twain's c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , irked T w a i n . 73

T h r o u g h his " W i s d o m S e e k e r " voice, Twain picks at the p r e m i s e s of

the a r g u m e n t a n d d e m a n d s empirical e v i d e n c e that limiting c o p y r i g h t
does in fact p r o d u c e c h e a p b o o k s a n d benefit a reading p u b l i c . Twain
appeals to the E u r o p e a n droit moral, droit d'auteur, or " m o r a l r i g h t s , "
t h e o r y of c o p y r i g h t . T w a i n concurs w i t h s u c h natural l a w theorists as
William B l a c k s t o n e a n d William W o r d s w o r t h , a n d pits h i m s e l f against
realists like J a m e s M a d i s o n , T h o m a s Jefferson, Lord Macaulay, and
A d a m Smith. C o p y r i g h t in E u r o p e e v o l v e d as a w a y to r e w a r d artistic
a n d authorial contributions to culture, not as the result of a utilitarian
bargain a m o n g a u t h o r s , publishers, a n d the p u b l i c , as it did in the
U n i t e d States. N a t i o n s that h a v e a tradition of protecting " m o r a l r i g h t s "
 72 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

tend to limit the uses to w h i c h c o p y r i g h t e d expression c a n b e put. T h e s e

nations tend to limit fair use, revisions, a n d parody. T h e p e n u m b r a of
m o r a l rights is v i e w e d as part of the a u t h o r ' s p o w e r s b y v i r t u e of creat-
ing s o m e t h i n g . T h e y f l o w f r o m the a u t h o r ' s pen, regardless of w h e t h e r
they enrich the p u b l i c . 74

B y 1898, at the a g e of sixty-three, Twain w a s m u c h m o r e of a " w i s -

d o m g i v e r " than a " s e e k e r , " a n d in the dialogue itself the w i s d o m
seeker a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y a b a n d o n s a n y Socratic distance a n d j u m p s
in w i t h his conclusions ready, to b l u d g e o n the senator w i t h his experi-
ence a n d k n o w l e d g e of b o t h the w r i t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g professions. B y
p a g e 4 of the m a n u s c r i p t , the w i s d o m seeker has tired of his teasing
questions a n d the s e n a t o r ' s stock a n s w e r s . H e s i m p l y declares that h a v -
ing a n e x p i r a t i o n date o n a b o o k ' s c o p y r i g h t destroys a n y c h a n c e for it
to b e r e p u b l i s h e d in a c h e a p a n d accessible form.

SENATOR: T h e r e is a reason for limiting copyright, a n d a s o u n d

o n e . Justice to the a u t h o r d e m a n d s that h e shall h a v e a fair
return for his labor; justice to the p u b l i c d e m a n d s that the
b o o k shall b e their p r o p e r t y afterward.
WISDOM SEEKER: T h e y h a v e p e r p e t u a l o w n e r s h i p , t h e n — t h e
thing d e n i e d to the a u t h o r as b e i n g against p u b l i c policy?
S: Yes.
WS: H a v e t h e y e a r n e d this?
S: It is n o t a question of earning; t h e y h a v e a right to take w h a t
t h e y will.
WS: I understood y o u to say that justice d e m a n d e d that the
property be delivered to them. H a v e you shifted your ground?
S: This is quibbling.
WS: Call it so. I a m satisfied if y o u are. T h e r e is a reason for
turning the p r o p e r t y over to the public? W h a t is it?
S: T h e p u b l i c a d v a n t a g e .
WS: T h e y get a n a d v a n t a g e , do they?
S: Certainly.
WS: H o w ?
S: T h e y get the b o o k cheaper.
WS: W h a t m a k e s y o u think that?
S: It isn't a m a t t e r of thinking; I k n o w it.
WS: H o w do y o u k n o w it?
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 73

S: It s t a n d s to r e a s o n that a b o o k w h i c h is n o t s a d d l e d w i t h a
r o y a l t y c a n b e i s s u e d at a c h e a p e r rate t h a n w h e n it is s o
saddled.
WS: So it is t h e o r y y o u are g o i n g u p o n , n o t fact?
S: F a c t s are n o t n e e d e d i n s u c h a plain c a s e ; t h e y w o u l d b e
superfluous.* 75

In this p a s s a g e the senator is expressing the classic r e p u b l i c a n argu-

m e n t that c h e a p b o o k s c a n spread literacy a n d e n c o u r a g e p u b l i c dis-
cussion. But Twain then turns that a r g u m e n t on its h e a d . In the next
p a s s a g e of the dialogue, T w a i n relies on an empirical line of question-
ing to deflate the s e n a t o r ' s republican theory. H e also introduces the
rather w e a k a r g u m e n t that the lack of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n is the cause
of the failure of so m a n y b o o k s to find a willing publisher.

S: A b s e n c e of c o p y r i g h t resurrects m a n y a d e a d b o o k a n d re-
stores it to life a n d c i r c u l a t i o n — t o the a d v a n t a g e of the
public.
WS: A n d the publisher.
S: W m . T. S t e a d has restored t w o o r three h u n d r e d d e a d b o o k s
to life in E n g l a n d , a n d h a s sold millions of copies at a trifling
price.
WS: W h y did the b o o k s die?
S: I do n o t know.
WS: Expiration of copyright killed t h e m . W h e n a selling b o o k ' s
copyright dies, a n u m b e r of publishers take it u p a n d issue
a single edition of it; t h e y s k i m the c r e a m , then d r o p it,
r u n n i n g n o further risks w i t h it. It ceases f r o m b e i n g a d v e r -
tised. It drops out of the public notice a n d is forgotten. All in
five y e a r s — p o s s i b l y in t w o . T h e b o o k is lost to the public;
w h e r e a s i n s o m e cases it m i g h t h a v e lived fifty years longer
u n d e r c o p y r i g h t protection. In seizing the property, the p u b -
lic r o b b e d b o t h itself a n d the a u t h o r ' s children, a n d g a i n e d
an a d v a n t a g e for nobody. In E u r o p e , Tauchnitz, w h o s e cheap
and beautiful p a p e r editions y o u are a c q u a i n t e d w i t h , still
goes o n steadily selling, to this day, a n u m b e r of foreign
b o o k s w h i c h d i e d in their o w n countries years a g o w h e n
copyright protection failed t h e m . * 76
 74 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

T w a i n a r g u e s here that w i t h e x t e n d e d copyright protection, a n a u t h o r

or his or her f a m i l y m i g h t h a v e an incentive to s e e k out a willing p u b -
lisher. W i t h o u t s u c h a n interested agent, Twain asserts, the publisher
will s i m p l y a s s u m e there is n o m a r k e t interest in m o s t b o o k s . Twain
p u s h e s the s e n a t o r to consider t h o s e a u t h o r s w h o h a v e b e e n able to
k e e p their b o o k s i n print, despite h a v i n g n o financial r e w a r d for t h e m
o n c e t h e y enter the public d o m a i n .
In this dialogue T w a i n m a k e s a n overt a p p e a l to a sense of A m e r i -
c a n cultural inferiority prevalent at the v e r y d a w n of w h a t w a s to b e its
imperial age. Within t w o y e a r s , of c o u r s e , Twain w o u l d lose faith in a n y
sense of " A m e r i c a n C i v i l i z a t i o n " as a fact or goal. Still, as h e s h o w e d in
his c o n g r e s s i o n a l t e s t i m o n y in 1906, h e w a s n o t a b o v e exploiting the
imperialist a n d nationalist rhetoric to foster public s u p p o r t for the ex-
tension of copyright p r o t e c t i o n . 77

T h e s e n a t o r h a s o n e m o r e w e a p o n to u s e in s u p p o r t of a limited
t e r m of c o p y r i g h t . T h e s e n a t o r a p p e a l s to t h e a r g u m e n t s that L o r d
M a c a u l a y m a d e in t h e B r i t i s h p a r l i a m e n t a r y d e b a t e o v e r c o p y r i g h t in
1 8 4 1 . T h o m a s B a b i n g t o n M a c a u l a y lived f r o m 1800 to 1859. H e is b e s t
k n o w n as a n e s s a y i s t a n d h i s t o r i a n , b u t h e also b e c a m e a m i n i s t e r of
P a r l i a m e n t in 1830, a n d e s t a b l i s h e d his p o w e r s as a n o r a t o r i n the R e -
f o r m Bill d e b a t e s . A s a h i s t o r i a n , h e is r e m e m b e r e d for w r i t i n g The
History of England from the Accession of James II, w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e d
b e t w e e n 1 8 4 8 a n d 1862, a l t h o u g h h e left t h e fifth v o l u m e u n f i n i s h e d
at his d e a t h . D u r i n g d e b a t e s o v e r e x t e n d i n g c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n for
British a u t h o r s , M a c a u l a y f o u g h t a p r o p o s a l to g r a n t British a u t h o r s
c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n for the life of the a u t h o r p l u s sixty y e a r s , as the
F r e n c h l a w d i d , a n d s u c c e e d e d in r e t a i n i n g t h e t w e n t y - e i g h t - y e a r
t e r m t h e n in effect.
M a c a u l a y skillfully shifted the issue f r o m o n e of p r o p e r t y rights
a n d r e w a r d s to o n e of m o n o p o l y p o w e r a n d taxation. A c o p y r i g h t is
functionally a t e m p o r a r y b u t n e c e s s a r y m o n o p o l y for a n author, h e as-
serted. O n l y o n e publisher m a y m a r k e t a w o r k . This m o n o p o l y n e c e s -
sarily increases the price of the b o o k a b o v e the m a r k e t v a l u e of older
w o r k s a l r e a d y in the public d o m a i n . T h e difference b e t w e e n the sale
price of the m o n o p o l i s t i c a l l y p u b l i s h e d b o o k a n d a similar public do-
m a i n b o o k (subject to d o w n w a r d p r i c e pressure if m o r e t h a n o n e p u b -
lisher has issued it) is the " t a x " the a u t h o r d e m a n d s f r o m the reader. A s
w i t h all taxes, the liberal M a c a u l a y a r g u e d , it s h o u l d b e h i g h e n o u g h to
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 75

a c c o m p l i s h its incentive p u r p o s e , b u t n o t a p e n n y higher. N o r s h o u l d it

last a d a y longer, h e a r g u e d . 78

S: D i d n ' t M a c a u l a y m a k e o n e [an a r g u m e n t for limited c o p y -

right duration]?
WS: N o . Very far from it. H e left out the essential f a c t — a n d
there is o n l y o n e : that 999 out of e v e r y 1,000 b o o k s die long
within the copyright limit; a n d h e left out the a r g u m e n t that
it is puerile in a nation to d e g r a d e itself to the m e a n i n g of a
s o l e m n l a w to steal the r e m a i n i n g b o o k .
S: M a c a u l a y c o n v i n c e d a P a r l i a m e n t that w a n t e d to raise the
limit to 60 years.
WS: A P a r l i a m e n t of w h a t ? Publishers? N o , s i r — a P a r l i a m e n t
of statesmen. A Parliament of publishers w o u l d h a v e laughed
at h i m .
S: H o w d o y o u c o m e to k n o w s o m u c h a b o u t this matter?
WS: I k n o w the secrets of b o t h sides. I b o u g h t m y k n o w l e d g e ,
and p a i d c a s h for it.
S: H o w ?
WS: I financially b a c k e d a publishing h o u s e ten years.
S: Certainly y o u o u g h t to k n o w s o m e t h i n g a b o u t it.
WS: S p e a k i n g w i t h i n the b o u n d s of m o d e s t y — I h o p e — I claim
to k n o w as m u c h a b o u t it as a n y m a n alive; a n d a g o o d four
times as m u c h as M a c a u l a y d i v u l g e d . H e m a y h a v e di-
v u l g e d all h e knew, for h e w a s b u t a m e r e author, after all,
but b a c k of his data lay the essential thing, a n d that w a s n o t
b r o u g h t to light.
S: If M a c a u l a y h a d k e p t s t i l l —
WS: E n g l a n d w o u l d h a v e raised the limit to 60 years a n d w e
should h a v e f o l l o w e d suit.
S: W o u l d 60 years satisfy y o u ?
WS: N o . It w o u l d m e r e l y do w h a t the present limit d o e s —
cover the life-time of 1 b o o k in 1,000, a n d n o m o r e . A n d
w h e n that b o o k h a s lived 60 years, the c h a n c e s are v e r y g o o d
that it will live 40 m o r e . I detest the p r i n c i p l e . A limit w h o s e
only possible function is to p r o v i d e for the stealing of 1 b o o k
in 1,000 is a childish a n d d i s h o n o r a b l e thing, a n d a paltry
b u s i n e s s for a great n a t i o n to b e e n g a g e d i n . * 79
 76 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

H e r e Twain, after disposing of M a c a u l a y b y questioning w h e t h e r the

p u b l i c e v e r enjoys " t a x relief" f r o m a w o r k entering the p u b l i c d o m a i n ,
takes a firm stand in favor of p e r p e t u a l c o p y r i g h t protection, a position
h e k n e w w o u l d n e v e r enjoy w i d e s p r e a d support.
T w a i n also a c k n o w l e d g e s that s u c h a p r o p o s a l c o u l d n o t p a s s con-
stitutional scrutiny, b e c a u s e the U.S. Constitution specifically required
patents a n d c o p y r i g h t s to b e " f o r limited t i m e s . " S m a l l obstacles like
constitutionality did n o t d i s s u a d e Twain from outlining for the senator
an elaborate s y s t e m of r e w a r d s a n d incentives that h e b e l i e v e d w o u l d
m a x i m i z e the n u m b e r of b o o k s in circulation, m i n i m i z e their prices,
a n d stabilize the e a r n i n g s of a u t h o r s a n d their families.

W S : A s a b e g i n n i n g , I w o u l d a m e n d the l a w a n d m a k e c o p y -
right p e r p e t u a l .
S: G o on.
WS: N e x t , I w o u l d i n t r o d u c e a 2 0 - y e a r s t a g e — t o this effect.
W h e n a c o p y r i g h t h a d b e e n i n f o r c e 20 y e a r s , I w o u l d re-
quire the p u b l i s h e r to i s s u e a c h e a p edition, a n d k e e p it al-
w a y s o n sale.
S: How cheap?
WS: O n e - e i g h t h of the retail price of the b o o k ' s c h e a p e s t exist-
ing e d i t i o n . * 80

Since Twain h a s a l r e a d y e v a d e d the restrictions of Article 1 of the C o n -

stitution, n o t h i n g stops h i m f r o m a d v o c a t i n g a proposal that w o u l d vi-
olate the First A m e n d m e n t as w e l l . Therefore, h e declares h e w o u l d
h a v e C o n g r e s s force p u b l i s h e r s to p r o d u c e b o o k s regardless of content
or m a r k e t d e m a n d .

WS: Very w e l l . O n N e w Y e a r ' s Day, a u t h o r s a n d p u b l i s h e r s

w o u l d all start fair, w i t h o u t partialities for anybody. T h e old
lot of a u t h o r s n o w l o n g before the public, a n d the n e w lot, of
recent f a m e , c o u l d issue b o o k s under p e r p e t u a l copyright,
a n d sit d o w n a n d o b s e r v e results. It will b e like surface min-
ing. H a v e you ever b e e n a surface m i n e r ?
S: N o .
WS: Well, it is like this. T h e b o y s lock to the n e w gold field, and
each stakes off a claim for himself, u n d e r the conditions p r o -
v i d e d b y the l a w s of the c a m p . A claim 20 feet s q u a r e , let us
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 77

say. A t the e n d of a c o u p l e of m o n t h s it will t u r n out that

Jones a n d B r o w n h a v e struck it v e r y rich, R o b i n s o n , Peters
and Walker fairly rich, several others a c h i e v e " g r u b m o n e y , "
and n o t h i n g m o r e . It h a s b e e n a m a t t e r of luck, in all c a s e s —
no o n e k n e w w h a t w a s u n d e r the g r o u n d . N o w if t h o s e m i n -
ers w e r e stupid a n d unjust, their c a m p - l a w w o u l d limit
c l a i m - o w n e r s h i p to a specific term, a n d w h e n the t e r m w a s
u p the u n l u c k y ones c o u l d rush in a n d dig gold in the fortu-
nate claims of J o n e s , B r o w n , R o b i n s o n , Peters a n d W a l k e r —
but t h e y d o n ' t do that; o n l y stupid a n d unfair c o p y r i g h t l a w s
do that. W o u l d J o n e s , B r o w n a n d C o . like that k i n d of c a m p
law? N e c e s s a r i l y n o t . T h e n w h y should a p u b l i s h e r w h o h a s
s t u m b l e d u p o n a fortunate b o o k like it?
S: I s u p p o s e h e s h o u l d n ' t .
WS: Of c o u r s e h e s h o u l d n ' t . M y p r o p o s e d l a w starts at the p u b -
lishers level. At the e n d of 20 y e a r s , all w h o h a v e c h a n c e d to
strike a rich b o o k in the m e a n t i m e are left in its u n d i s t u r b e d
possession.
S: S u m m a r i z e d , y o u r l a w —
WS: W o u l d benefit the publisher, b e c a u s e it w o u l d protect his
valuable b o o k s from raidings a n d destruction at the e n d of a
term. It w o u l d benefit the a u t h o r b y giving h i m p e r p e t u a l
o w n e r s h i p in his p r o p e r t y in place of a m e r e l e a s e h o l d . It
w o u l d benefit the p u b l i c b e c a u s e it w o u l d c o m p e l cheap
publication, a n d cut d o w n the t e r m for the delivery of it b y
22 years. It w o u l d benefit the n a t i o n a l literature, also, b y en-
larging its p e r m a n e n t v o l u m e ; for it w o u l d e n a b l e s o m e
b o o k s to c o n t i n u e in life w h i c h w o u l d b e h u s t l e d to death
and flung a w a y at the e n d of the t e r m u n d e r the present evil
system.* 81

Twain's u s e of a m i n i n g a n a l o g y w o r k s for h i m o n several levels. First,

m i n i n g reflects Twain's s e c o n d e x p o s u r e to theories a n d practices of
p r o p e r t y a n d o w n e r s h i p (the first b e i n g s l a v e r y ) . Secondly, it is charac-
teristically A m e r i c a n . It g e n e r a t e s i m a g e s of daring e n t r e p r e n e u r s on
the frontier. To a c h i e v e a provincially E u r o p e a n goal, h a v i n g the state
a n d society appreciate a n d r e w a r d the a u t h o r as a cultural a n d political
hero, Twain uses A m e r i c a n tools. B y triggering i m a g e s of a d v e n t u r o u s ,
h a r d w o r k i n g , a n d b r a v e m i n e r s (an i m a g e h e h u m o r o u s l y e x p l o d e d in
 78 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

Roughing It) exploiting the s e e m i n g l y limitless s u p p l y of land in the

A m e r i c a n West, h e m a k e s copyright s e e m like a case of s i m p l e dis-
tributive justice, rather t h a n the c o m p l e x l y b a l a n c e d policy it really is
a n d w a s . M o s t significantly, t h o u g h , T w a i n ' s u s e of the m i n i n g a n a l o g y
solidly situates c o p y r i g h t t h e o r y as a matter of p r o p e r t y rights, w h i c h
in Twain's t i m e w a s n o t a l w a y s the locus of debate. F o r Twain, c o p y -
right w a s for benefit of the author, his ideal of a cultural entrepreneur,
w h e r e a s for M a d i s o n , Macaulay, a n d the p r e d o m i n a n t b o d y of A m e r i -
c a n case l a w u p until the e n d of the t w e n t i e t h century, c o p y r i g h t w a s
for the g o o d of the public, a n e c e s s a r y evil to p r o v i d e a n incentive for
creativity.

TWAIN'S LEGACY

In April of 1900, t w o years after w o r k i n g t h r o u g h his a r g u m e n t s in " T h e

Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d , " Twain a p p e a r e d b e f o r e a select c o m -
mittee of the H o u s e of Lords. U s i n g tight s u m m a r i e s of the points h e a d -
u m b r a t e d in the 1898 dialogue, T w a i n m a d e the case for p e r p e t u a l
copyright. But h e t o o k it o n e step further. Twain declared that there is
n o difference b e t w e e n the role of ideas in copyright a n d the role of ideas
in real property. " T h e limited c o p y r i g h t m a k e s a distinction b e t w e e n an
a u t h o r ' s property a n d real estate, p r e t e n d i n g that b o t h are n o t created,
p r o d u c e d a n d acquired in the s a m e way. T h e m a n w h o p u r c h a s e s a
l a n d e d estate h a d to e a r n the m o n e y b y the superiority of his intellect;
a b o o k is the result of a n a u t h o r ' s o w n brain in the s a m e m a n n e r — a
c o m b i n a t i o n a n d exploitation of his i d e a s . " This is a n o d d a n d s p e c i o u s
a r g u m e n t . Certainly the p e r s o n w r i t i n g a c h e c k for a piece of land could
h a v e inherited the money. T h e p e r s o n c o u l d h a v e f r a u d u l e n t l y pre-
s e n t e d a loan application to a b a n k . T h e person c o u l d h a v e stolen the
money. Of course, stealing is often a n exercise of intellect as w e l l , at least
as m u c h as recording a story told b y M a r y A n n C o r d . T h e H o u s e of
Lords was not s w a y e d . 82

T w a i n in 1900 c o l l a p s e d t h e i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y in a w a y
n o o n e b e f o r e or s i n c e h a s tried to do: b y a t t a c h i n g i d e a s to all f o r m s
of property, i n s t e a d of c l a i m i n g that there is a p r o p e r t y right i n h e r -
e n t l y a t t a c h e d to i d e a s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n for this is
that the ideal real property, to Twain, w a s still a m i n e . To b e a s u c c e s s -
ful miner, o n e h a d to h a v e a c l u e , d o s o m e w o r k , a n d get lucky. To
 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T 79

Twain, i d e a s , albeit s h a l l o w a n d dry, l a y b e h i n d the silver m i n e s of

Nevada.
Twain testified before a U.S. c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e o n c e m o r e in
1906, this t i m e in s u p p o r t of a c o m p l e t e revision of copyright l a w that
w o u l d h a v e stretched the d u r a t i o n of protection from t w e n t y - e i g h t
years, r e n e w a b l e for a n o t h e r fourteen y e a r s , to the lifetime of the a u t h o r
plus fifty y e a r s . 83
"I t h i n k that w o u l d satisfy a n y reasonable author, b e -
cause it w o u l d take care of his children. Let the g r a n d c h i l d r e n t a k e care
of t h e m s e l v e s , " C l e m e n s said. H e i n v o k e d a valorization of a u t h o r s h i p ,
a n d n o t e d that the legislatures of w e s t e r n nations h a v e b e t r a y e d the
n o b l e class. " T h e y a l w a y s talk h a n d s o m e l y a b o u t the literature of the
land, a l w a y s w h a t a fine, great, m o n u m e n t a l t h i n g great literature is,
a n d in the m i d s t of their e n t h u s i a s m t h e y t u r n a r o u n d a n d do w h a t they
can to d i s c o u r a g e i t . " 8 4

C o n g r e s s failed to p a s s the bill T w a i n s u p p o r t e d in 1 9 0 6 , w h i c h

p r o p o s e d that t h e d u r a t i o n of c o p y r i g h t e x t e n d t h r o u g h t h e life of the
a u t h o r a n d for fifty y e a r s m o r e . C o n g r e s s , l a r g e l y b e c a u s e t h e C o n s t i -
tution f o r b i d s it, h a s n e v e r s u p p o r t e d p e r p e t u a l c o p y r i g h t in a n y
f o r m . T h e c o p y r i g h t bill of 1909 d i d get p a s t C o n g r e s s . P r e s i d e n t Wil-
l i a m H o w a r d Taft s i g n e d i t . 85
T h e " l i f e p l u s 50 y e a r s " p r o v i s i o n , h o w -
ever, d i d not s u r v i v e c o m m i t t e e scrutiny. P u b l i s h e r s h a d m o r e politi-
cal p o w e r , a n d t h e y b e s t e d the a u t h o r s . T h e t w o sides d i d f o r g e a
c o m p r o m i s e of sorts that e x p a n d e d p r o t e c t i o n . T h e 1909 l a w set the
d u r a t i o n at t w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s , w i t h a r e n e w a l for t w e n t y - e i g h t m o r e
y e a r s . C l e m e n s w a s n o t u p s e t b y t h e c h a n g e , h o w e v e r . H e w r o t e in a
1909 letter to S e n a t o r C h a m p C l a r k , o n e of t h e b i l l ' s s p o n s o r s , " I s the
n e w c o p y r i g h t l a w a c c e p t a b l e to m e ? E m p h a t i c a l l y , y e s ! " C l e m e n s
w a s satisfied w i t h e v e n a m o d e r a t e e x t e n s i o n of t h e d u r a t i o n . " A t
l a s t — a t last a n d for the first t i m e i n c o p y r i g h t h i s t o r y — w e are a h e a d
of E n g l a n d ! A h e a d of h e r in t w o w a y s : b y l e n g t h of t i m e a n d b y fair-
n e s s to all interests c o n c e r n e d . " 8 6

T w a i n m i g h t h a v e b e e n p l e a s e d w i t h the m o v e m e n t of c o p y r i g h t
p r o t e c t i o n t h r o u g h t h e t w e n t i e t h century, as w e l l . T h e 1976 c o p y r i g h t
law, to w h i c h t h e U n i t e d States a d h e r e d until 1 9 9 8 , m a d e t h e d u r a t i o n
of p r o t e c t i o n life of the a u t h o r p l u s fifty y e a r s . In 1 9 9 8 , C o n g r e s s ex-
t e n d e d t h e d u r a t i o n to s e v e n t y y e a r s b e y o n d the life of t h e a u t h o r
a n d g r a n t e d all c u r r e n t c o p y r i g h t s t w e n t y m o r e y e a r s . W h i l e T w a i n ' s
a r g u m e n t f r o m a n a p p e a l to p r o p e r t y rights a n d a s e n s e of justice
h a s p e r s u a d e d C o n g r e s s to e x t e n d the d u r a t i o n of t h e law, f e w of the
 80 MARK T W A I N A N D THE HISTORY OF LITERARY C O P Y R I G H T

e x p a n s i o n s of c o p y r i g h t in the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w o u l d h a v e p l e a s e d
early r e p u b l i c a n s s u c h as M a d i s o n .
B y e m p h a s i z i n g the p r o p e r t y rights of the a u t h o r as the p a r a m o u n t
p u r p o s e of copyright law, the U n i t e d States h a s g r o w n closer to E u r o p e
in copyright p h i l o s o p h y over the t w e n t i e t h century. B u t b y d o i n g s o it
has j e o p a r d i z e d the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy, p u b l i c d o m a i n , fair
use, o p e n access to information, a n d the ability to freely satirize, parody,
or c o m m e n t on a n existing w o r k . T h e U n i t e d States w a s at the e n d of
the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y on the v e r g e of c o m p l e t e l y rewriting its c o p y r i g h t
f r a m e w o r k a n d a b a n d o n i n g a n y s e n s e of public g o o d inherent i n it. A
c e n t u r y after T w a i n w r o t e " T h e Great R e p u b l i c ' s P e a n u t S t a n d " in the
A u s t r i a n m o u n t a i n s , his n a t i o n of birth w a s finally willing to g r a n t h i m
far m o r e t h a n h e asked for, a n d far m o r e than h e or w e n e e d . 8 7

But Twain c o u l d n o t h a v e k n o w n in 1898 or 1906 o r 1909 w h a t such

a rhetorical shift w o u l d m e a n a h u n d r e d y e a r s later. H e c o u l d n o t h a v e
foreseen (although p e r h a p s careful readers of A Connecticut Yankee in
King Arthur's Court m i g h t argue) the globalization of m a r k e t s for cre-
ative a n d i n f o r m a t i o n - b a s e d p r o d u c t s a n d the reductions in the costs of
duplication a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n that the last half of the t w e n t i e t h century
has p r o d u c e d . We c a n speculate, h o w e v e r , that Twain w a s able to hold
s e e m i n g l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y n o t i o n s of creativity a n d copyright b e c a u s e
t h r o u g h m o s t of his professional writing career h e m a i n t a i n e d healthy
distinctions b e t w e e n p i r a c y a n d p l a g i a r i s m a n d b e t w e e n ideas a n d ex-
pressions. O n l y n e a r the e n d of life a n d career did self-interest w i n out
a n d t r u m p his c o n c e r n for future authors a n d artists. M a r k Twain's
shifting t h o u g h t s o n c o p y r i g h t parallel the disturbing trends in A m e r i -
c a n c o p y r i g h t policy in the t w e n t i e t h century.
 3

Celluloid Copyright and Derivative Works

Or, How to Stop 12 Monkeys with One Chair

S O M E P E O P L E C O N S I D E R E D G r o u c h o M a r x a n d his brothers thieves.

M a n y c o m e d i a n s w h o h a d their start o n the v a u d e v i l l e stage partici-
p a t e d in the age-old habit of act a p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d j o k e stealing. Every-
b o d y did it, but the M a r x Brothers got c a u g h t a f e w t i m e s . T h e y w e r e
m o r e c o m m e r c i a l l y successful in their transition to the film m e d i u m
than m o s t of their p e e r s w e r e . In m a n y w a y s , they w e r e b o l d e r t h a n just
about a n y c o m i c s , t h e n or since. B e c a u s e of their audacity, or p e r h a p s
their carelessness, G r o u c h o M a r x , his brothers, their writers, a n d their
studio w e r e forced to d e f e n d at least three m a j o r c o p y r i g h t infringe-
m e n t suits in their careers. It's clear that the M a r x Brothers, despite
their creative c o m i c g e n i u s , relied h e a v i l y o n the w o r k s of others for
their s u c c e s s . 1

B y the 1980s, the M a r x B r o t h e r s ' legacy, reputation, a n d b o d y of

w o r k h a d solidified to s u c h a degree that t h e y b e c a m e the plaintiffs b e -
hind l a w s u i t s , instead of the targets of t h e m . In 1979, o n e of the M a r x
B r o t h e r s ' m o s t successful films for P a r a m o u n t , Duck Soup (1933), w a s
a m o n g the pictures that m o v i e s t u d i o s cited i n their u n s u c c e s s f u l suit
against S o n y C o r p o r a t i o n to p r e v e n t the sale of B e t a m a x m a c h i n e s for
h o m e v i d e o taping. T h r e e y e a r s later, a federal court of a p p e a l s h e a r d a
c o m p l a i n t b y G r o u c h o M a r x P r o d u c t i o n s I n c o r p o r a t e d against a dra-
matic p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y that h a d u s e d likenesses of the M a r x Broth-
ers in a B r o a d w a y p l a y called A Day in Hollywood/A Night in Ukraine.
C l a i m i n g that the d e c e a s e d M a r x Brothers h a d a s s i g n e d the rights to
their likenesses to the c o m p a n y , G r o u c h o M a r x P r o d u c t i o n s tried to en-
force a p e r p e t u a l m o n o p o l y on the characteristics of its n a m e s a k e : the
painted m u s t a c h e , e l o n g a t e d gait, slick hair, cigar, a n d glasses. T h e
court ruled against G r o u c h o M a r x P r o d u c t i o n s , but the case r e m a i n s an
e x a m p l e of h o w v a l u a b l e the M a r x Brothers are as c o m m o d i t i e s long
after t h e y h a v e c e a s e d b e i n g c r e a t o r s — o r b o r r o w e r s . 2

81
 82 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

B e t w e e n 1938 a n d 1979, G r o u c h o M a r x a n d t h e M a r x B r o t h e r s
w e n t f r o m b e i n g " c o p y r i g h t - p o o r , " h a v i n g to t a k e or b o r r o w m a t e r i a l
f r o m o t h e r s , to b e i n g " c o p y r i g h t - r i c h , " e v e n after d e a t h . D u r i n g that
s a m e p e r i o d , the m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y as a w h o l e e x h i b i t e d this
p h e n o m e n o n as w e l l . A t its b i r t h , the film i n d u s t r y h a d a n inter-
est i n a l l o w i n g free a n d e a s y a d a p t a t i o n of w o r k s f r o m c o p y r i g h t -
rich literary a u t h o r s , s u c h as M a r k T w a i n a n d J a c k L o n d o n . A s the
i n d u s t r y g r e w m o r e l u c r a t i v e a n d s c r e e n w r i t e r s a n d directors m o r e
c r e a t i v e , s t u d i o s f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s o n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s i d e in c o p y -
right suits. B u t g e t t i n g c o p y r i g h t - r i c h h a s n o t altered all of the b e -
h a v i o r s of H o l l y w o o d e x e c u t i v e s . T h e y still s o m e t i m e s act as if t h e y
are c o p y r i g h t - p o o r as a w a y to get " c o p y r i g h t - r i c h e r , " or j u s t plain
richer. E v e n in t h e late 1 9 9 0 s , the f i l m i n d u s t r y w a s still trying to
h a v e it b o t h w a y s , e a s i l y e x p l o i t i n g n o n f i c t i o n w o r k s or stories
f r o m t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n w h i l e l o b b y i n g for i n c r e a s e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l
a n d d o m e s t i c c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n for their f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s . T h i s
c h a p t e r traces that shift: h o w t h e m o t i o n picture s t u d i o s — l i k e M a r k
Twain and other American authors before t h e m — m a d e themselves
copyright-rich.

LEARNING FROM T W A I N , T A K I N G FROM T W A I N

A l t h o u g h M a r k Twain m a d e l o u d a n d frequent p r o n o u n c e m e n t s a b o u t
copyright law, h e n e v e r s e e m e d o v e r l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h its effects o n a n y
i n d u s t r y e x c e p t literary publishing. A m e r i c a n copyright l a w h a d c o v -
ered b o o k s , m a p s , a n d charts since 1790, e n g r a v i n g s a n d p r i n t e d m u s i -
cal c o m p o s i t i o n s since 1 8 3 1 , p h o t o g r a p h s since 1865, d r a m a t i z a t i o n s
a n d translations since 1870. But in the last d e c a d e of the n i n e t e e n t h cen-
tury a n d the first d e c a d e of the t w e n t i e t h century, the w o r k of T h o m a s
A l v a E d i s o n a n d others h a d o p e n e d u p c o m m e r c i a l possibilities for
r e c o r d e d m u s i c a n d m o v i n g pictures. Before the 1909 c o p y r i g h t revi-
sions, the codified law did n o t deal w i t h these n e w technologies, al-
t h o u g h occasionally courts s a w fit to e x p a n d the l a w to n e w m e d i a .
E v e n in the 1909 copyright law, m o t i o n pictures w e r e left off the list of
protected m e d i a . A l t h o u g h Twain w a s a great fan a n d friend of E d i s o n
a n d a bit of a technological m a v e n , h e did n o t s e e m to b e interested in
the storytelling potential of film in the last y e a r s of his life. N o r w a s
T w a i n c o n c e r n e d w i t h the effects of c o p y r i g h t o n " d e r i v a t i v e w o r k s , "
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 83

w o r k s in m e d i a s u c h as stage a n d screen that w e r e s o m e w h a t b a s e d on

p r e v i o u s l y c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s s u c h as n o v e l s . 3

Twain, h o w e v e r , w a s one of the earliest authors to h a v e w o r k u s e d

as the basis of a n a r r a t i v e film. In 1909, the p e n u l t i m a t e year of Twain's
life, his short story " T h e D e a t h D i s k " b e c a m e the subject of o n e of the
earliest one-reel d r a m a s b y the film p i o n e e r D . W. Griffith. B e t w e e n the
years 1908 a n d 1913, Griffith p r o d u c e d , directed, a n d often w r o t e a se-
ries of one-reel films for the A m e r i c a n M u t o s c o p e a n d B i o g r a p h C o m -
pany. D u r i n g this t i m e , Griffith built on the e m e r g i n g art of narrative
film a n d took it to n e w creative h e i g h t s . Before h e c h a n g e d A m e r i c a n
f i l m m a k i n g forever w i t h his a u t h o r i z e d 1915 p r o d u c t i o n of T h o m a s
D i x o n ' s The Clansman, retitled The Birth of a Nation, Griffith retold sto-
ries w r i t t e n b y other a u t h o r s w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n .
" T h e D e a t h D i s k , " p u b l i s h e d first inHarper's Monthly in 1901, is the
tale of a little girl w h o s e father is a colonel in Oliver C r o m w e l l ' s army.
T h r o u g h o u t the tale, the little girl is too i n n o c e n t to realize that
C r o m w e l l is c o n s i d e r i n g sentencing h e r dear father to death for dis-
obeying orders in battle. In a strange twist, C r o m w e l l m e e t s the child
a n d invites her into his court. H e then offers the girl three w a x disks,
o n e red, t w o w h i t e . H e instructs h e r to give o n e disk to e a c h of the three
colonels seated before h i m . S h e decides that the prettiest disk, the death
disk, s h o u l d g o to her father. After C r o m w e l l explains that she h a s sen-
tenced h e r o w n father to death, the girl p l e a d s w i t h the L o r d Protector
a n d i n v o k e s a p l e d g e h e h a d m a d e to o b e y her w i s h e s . C r o m w e l l spares
the colonel's l i f e . 4

T h e story is s i m p l e a n d short. It occurs in t w o scenes: the h o m e and

the court. It h a s o n l y four s p e a k i n g parts: the parents, the child, and
C r o m w e l l . Griffith's film, of c o u r s e , h a d n o " s p e a k i n g " parts a s w e
k n o w t h e m . T h e dialogue w a s s i m p l y w o r d s f r a m e d on a b l a c k screen.
T h e action w a s p u r e p a n t o m i m e . But Griffith m a d e several major
c h a n g e s to the story w h e n h e got h o l d of it. In his film, w h i c h w a s reti-
tled The Death Disc, Griffith m a d e the little girl's f a m i l y Catholic victims
of C r o m w e l l ' s tyranny, n o t faithful m e m b e r s of C r o m w e l l ' s radical
Protestant m o v e m e n t as in Twain's story. Still, the family r e m a i n s h a p -
pily intact b y the e n d of the one-reel p i c t u r e . 5

T h e degree to w h i c h w e c a n claim Griffith " t o o k " the story from

Twain is unclear. Griffith spelled the title slightly differently. N o t h i n g in
the bulletin that a d v e r t i s e d the film declared that the story w a s b y
Twain, w h i l e other B i o g r a p h bulletins often c l a i m e d that their stories
 84 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

w e r e from w e l l - k n o w n a u t h o r s s u c h as G e o r g e Eliot, Charles D i c k e n s ,

L e o Tolstoy, J a m e s F e n i m o r e Cooper, a n d Alfred L o r d Tennyson. A n d ,
as n o t e d , Griffith m a d e substantial c h a n g e s to the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the
f a m i l y in the story. Still, Twain's short story s e e m s to b e the m o s t likely
source of the plot for the film.
T w a i n first c a m e across the i d e a for a C r o m w e l l i a n e x e c u t i o n b y lot
in 1883 w h i l e reading T h o m a s Carlyle's five-volume Oliver Cromwell's
Letters and Speeches. Carlyle gives a o n e - p a r a g r a p h a c c o u n t of C r o m w e l l
facing t w o W e l s h colonels a n d a d r u n k e n colonel f r o m P e m b r o k e . A c -
cording to Carlyle, C r o m w e l l ordered: " D e a t h h o w e v e r shall b e e x e -
cuted o n l y u p o n o n e of t h e m ; let the other t w o b e p a r d o n e d : let t h e m
d r a w lots w h i c h t w o . " Two of the p a p e r lots h a d the w o r d s " L i f e G i v e n
b y G o d . " T h e third lot w a s blank. After the prisoners refused to draw,
C r o m w e l l a s k e d a child to m a k e the choice. T h e d r u n k e n colonel from
P e m b r o k e w a s s h o t s o o n after h e received the b l a n k paper. In C a r l y l e ' s
account, there w a s n o plea from a cute child, n o h u m a n e c h a n g e of heart
b y a s e n t i m e n t a l L o r d Protector, a n d the d e a t h w a r r a n t w a s i s s u e d b y
paper, n o t w a x d i s k or d i s c . 6

T w a i n declared a n interest in writing a C r o m w e l l i a n t r a g e d y in his

n o t e b o o k in 1 8 8 3 . H e also w r o t e to William D e a n H o w e l l s later that y e a r
suggesting that they collaborate o n a story a b o u t s u c h a fatal lottery.
T w a i n finally got a r o u n d to writing " T h e D e a t h D i s k " in 1899 w h i l e v i s -
iting L o n d o n . Harper's Monthly Magazine p u b l i s h e d it in D e c e m b e r
1 9 0 1 . Twain i n c l u d e d the story in three collected v o l u m e s in his lifetime:
A Double-Barrelled Detective Story (1902), My Debut as a Literary Person
(1903), a n d The $30,000 Bequest and Other Stories (1906). Twain h a d the
story d r a m a t i z e d at C a r n e g i e Hall in 1902 as The Death Wafer. When
T w a i n died in 1910, o n e p u b l i s h e d e u l o g y declared " T h e D e a t h D i s k "
a m o n g his finest stories. S o w h i l e the i d e a of e x e c u t i o n b y lot m i g h t
h a v e spread from C a r l y l e ' s h i s t o r y into the p u b l i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s b y
1909, it is likely that the plot device of a darling child first giving the
prettiest w a x disk to h e r father a n d then pleading for his life p r o b a b l y
c a m e from Twain himself. If n o t h i n g else can b e credited to Twain, the
title of the story c a n . 7

So w e k n o w that Griffith a n d B i o g r a p h d e c i d e d to p r o d u c e a film

v e r s i o n of a story set in C r o m w e l l ' s t i m e , a b o u t a father w h o w a s sen-
tenced to d e a t h b y lottery. L e t ' s a s s u m e that Griffith failed to s e e k or se-
cure p e r m i s s i o n f r o m either Twain or H a r p e r Brothers. P e r h a p s to cover
himself, Griffith c h a n g e d s o m e central e l e m e n t s of the story, c h a n g e d
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 85

the spelling of the title, a n d declined to m e n t i o n Twain's n a m e any-

w h e r e in the a d v e r t i s e m e n t s for the film. H a d Griffith infringed on
Twain's copyright? B y the e n d — e v e n the m i d d l e — o f the t w e n t i e t h cen-
tury, certainly a court w o u l d h a v e ruled that h e h a d . But film rights and
w h a t h a v e b e c o m e k n o w n as " d e r i v a t i v e w o r k " rights w e r e far from es-
tablished in the first d e c a d e of the century. T h e i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n di-
c h o t o m y w a s strong e n o u g h in 1909 to s u p p o r t s u c h a b o l d m o v e .
E x a m i n i n g the d y n a m i c of " t a k i n g , " or " b o r r o w i n g , " a story and
shifting it across m e d i a a n d technologies reveals s o m e troubling q u e s -
tions. W h a t is so " d e r i v a t i v e " a b o u t Griffith's b o r r o w i n g a plotline,
character types, a n d a h a n d f u l of p h r a s e s f r o m a w e l l - k n o w n literary
w o r k ? P r e s e n t i n g a short story in a l m o s t silent p a n t o m i m e w i t h limited
dialogue c a n n o t b e a n easy creative feat. At w h a t point does Griffith's
" v a l u e a d d e d " e x c e e d that of the writer? H o w m u c h of the short story
derived from folk tales or stories orally related? H o w m u c h of the orig-
inal w o r k derived from p r e v i o u s l y c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k that h a d since
lapsed into the p u b l i c d o m a i n as c o p y r i g h t s expired? Isn't all creative
w o r k , w h e n it c o m e s right d o w n to it, derivative? Is a plot a n idea or an
expression? H o w a b o u t a plot device? Is a character a n i d e a o r a n ex-
pression? W h a t sort of line s h o u l d the l a w d r a w to m a x i m i z e the
a m o u n t a n d quality of creative expression that are available to the p u b -
lic? All of these questions, during Griffith's time, lacked a n s w e r s . There
w a s s o m e conflicting case l a w that dealt w i t h derivative w o r k s s u c h as
translations a n d dramatizations, b u t the lines w e r e f u z z y a n d the n e w
m e d i u m of film s o radical that it w a s unclear h o w w e l l those p r e c e d e n t s
w o u l d apply. E v e n today, there is m o r e c o n f u s i o n than clarity a b o u t
these q u e s t i o n s . 8

Did Twain infringe o n Carlyle's w o r k ? T h e s i m p l e a n s w e r is n o .

Carlyle died in 1 8 8 1 , a n d so according to British l a w at the t i m e , all his
British c o p y r i g h t s still in effect at the e n d of his life entered the public
d o m a i n b y 1 8 8 8 , s e v e n years after his death. T h e first edition of
C r o m w e l l ' s letters c a m e out in 1845, so it w o u l d h a v e entered the p u b -
lic d o m a i n in 1887, f o r t y - t w o y e a r s after publication. Carlyle w o u l d n o t
h a v e enjoyed A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t b e c a u s e h e p u b l i s h e d before 1 8 9 1 .
But e v e n the l o n g hypothetical a n s w e r — p r e t e n d i n g that Carlyle's heirs
did s o m e h o w retain rights to his w o r k as late as 1 9 0 1 — i s p r o b a b l y n o .
Twain recycled o n l y the g e r m of the plot, the e x e c u t i o n b y lot. Carlyle
m i g h t or m i g h t n o t h a v e related a historical e v e n t in the text of his
c o m m e n t s on C r o m w e l l ' s letters. But Carlyle offered readers o n l y 109
 86 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

w o r d s in five sentences. Carlyle did not e v e n reveal the sex of the child
w h o d r e w the lots, or C r o m w e l l ' s m o t i v a t i o n for e x e c u t i n g o n e of the
colonels. Twain took the p a r a g r a p h from C a r l y l e ' s c o m m e n t s (which
h e cited as his inspiration w h e n h e p u b l i s h e d " T h e D e a t h D i s k " ) a n d
a d d e d characters, dialogue, setting, p a t h o s , motivation, a n d tension to
the story. C a r l y l e n a r r a t e d a n event. Twain w r o t e a story. Still, Griffith
d e r i v e d his film from Twain's w o r k , a n d Twain derived his w o r k from
Carlyle. T h e o n l y difference is the extent of c h a n g e — t h e v a l u e a d d e d b y
each s u b s e q u e n t creator. 9

U n d e r a strict interpretation of the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy,

T w a i n c o u l d control o n l y the specific expressions of his story, s u c h as
character n a m e s , p h r a s e s , dialogue, a n d descriptions. T h e ideas, such
as plot devices, events, m o t i v a t i o n s , a n d resolutions, w o u l d b e free for
a n y " s e c o n d t a k e r " to use to create new, albeit derivative, w o r k s . T h e r e -
fore, the strictest reading of the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y w o u l d
s u p p o r t the thinnest possible copyright protection.
But w o u l d w e w a n t the w o r l d ' s film industry (or a n y industry) to
h a v e that m u c h license? S u c h a h i g h , s t u r d y wall b e t w e e n idea a n d ex-
pression w o u l d r e d u c e the financial incentive for a u t h o r s to w r i t e b o o k s
at all. For m a n y a u t h o r s , m o t i o n picture rights c a n b e m o r e lucrative
than b o o k rights. If film p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n i e s c o u l d just t w e a k the de-
tails a n d alter the d i a l o g u e of a story like M a r i o P u z o ' s The Godfather,
they w o u l d m a k e m o v i e s that strongly r e s e m b l e w e l l - k n o w n stories
w i t h o u t giving credit or c o m p e n s a t i o n to the original author. Serious
fiction (and nonfiction) writers w o u l d lose out. M a n y c o m m e r c i a l l y
successful a u t h o r s , s u c h as P u z o , w o u l d skip the b o o k - w r i t i n g process
a n d just write screenplays. O c c a s i o n a l b o o k s w o u l d derive from films,
b u t rarely the other w a y a r o u n d . T h e w o r l d w o u l d h a v e f e w e r b o o k s ,
poorer a u t h o r s , a n d c h e a p e r films. S u c h a n incentive structure (or lack
thereof) w o u l d b e c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e a n d w o u l d fail to enforce the con-
stitutional m a n d a t e " t o p r o m o t e the sciences a n d useful a r t s . " I n d e e d ,
the film i n d u s t r y as w e k n o w it c o u l d n o t o p e r a t e efficiently w i t h o u t
s o m e m e a s u r e of " i d e a p r o t e c t i o n . "
H o w e v e r , o n c e the w a l l b e t w e e n idea a n d expression in the film
i n d u s t r y c r u m b l e d to rubble, the transference of content f r o m o n e
m e d i u m to a n o t h e r justified a b s u r d levels of c o p y r i g h t protection. This
e x t r e m i s m — " t h i c k " c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n a n d its general chilling effect
on the u s e of p r e v i o u s l y e x p r e s s e d i d e a s — h a s i m p e d e d creativity as
well. M a n y of the habits of the A m e r i c a n m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y de-
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 87

rive f r o m Griffith's i m p r o v i s e d legal m o v e s , a n d h a v e e n s u r e d that the

wall b e t w e e n ideas a n d expressions h a s e r o d e d quickly. This erosion
has generally, b u t n o t exclusively, w o r k e d in the m o t i o n picture i n d u s -
try's favor.

EDISON'S A D V E N T U R E S W I T H PATENTS
AND COPYRIGHTS

Occasionally, the distinct fields of intellectual p r o p e r t y l a w intersect.

It's a m o r e c o m m o n p h e n o m e n o n at the e n d of the t w e n t i e t h century, as
c o m p a n i e s struggle to d e f e n d m a r k e t share t h r o u g h lawsuits over
t r a d e m a r k a n d copyright, or c o m p u t e r c o m p a n i e s try to protect their
p r o d u c t s t h r o u g h a c o m b i n a t i o n of trade secrets, contracts, c o p y r i g h t s ,
a n d p a t e n t s . But early in the t w e n t i e t h century, s u c h crossover rarely
occurred. B o o k s w e r e b o o k s a n d printing presses w e r e printing presses,
a n d rarely did their controversies intersect. O n e exception w a s in the
gestational film industry. It c o n c e r n e d the efforts b y T h o m a s E d i s o n to
m o n o p o l i z e n e a r l y e v e r y s e g m e n t of it. E d i s o n ' s e x p e r i e n c e s serve as a
m o d e l for h o w later barons s u c h as Bill G a t e s tried to create u n n a t u r a l
m o n o p o l i e s b y m a n i p u l a t i n g c o p y r i g h t s , p a t e n t s , contracts, a n d access
to t e c h n o l o g y a n d w o r k s . B o t h p a t e n t a n d copyright l a w limit c o m p e t i -
tion a n d therefore increase or at least stabilize prices for a p r o d u c t or
service. Patents a n d c o p y r i g h t s are the o n l y constitutionally m a n d a t e d
m o n o p o l i e s , created w i t h the recognition that unfettered competition
w o u l d drain creators of their financial incentive to create.
T h o m a s E d i s o n k n e w the p a t e n t s y s t e m w e l l b y the t i m e h e b e g a n
capitalizing o n the idea of m a s s - m a r k e t e d m o t i o n pictures. O n e of Edi-
son's assistants, W i l l i a m K e n n e d y L a u r i e D i c k s o n , p e r f e c t e d a v i e w i n g
m a c h i n e in 1894 called the K i n e t o s c o p e . E d i s o n licensed K i n e t o s c o p e s
to a s y n d i c a t e that placed t h e m in d e p a r t m e n t s stores, hotels, retail
stores, a n d taverns a r o u n d the country. T h e y w e r e a big hit, b u t their
novel attractiveness s o o n w o r e off. O n l y o n e p e r s o n at a t i m e c o u l d
v i e w a K i n e t o s c o p e presentation, w h i c h w a s u s u a l l y a s i m p l e array of
p h o t o g r a p h s that w o u l d s i m u l a t e basic m o t i o n . So w h i l e the K i n e t o -
scope e x h a u s t e d its a p p e a l , inventors in E u r o p e a n d the U n i t e d States
w e r e b u s y m a k i n g film projectors that c o u l d m a k e m o t i o n pictures the
equivalent of stage p r o d u c t i o n s . 10

Edison h i m s e l f i n t r o d u c e d a projector, d u b b e d the Vitascope, just

 88 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

t w o years after the K i n e t o s c o p e . E d i s o n a n d his lab h a d not invented

the V i t a s c o p e . A f e l l o w n a m e d T h o m a s A r m a t h a d . O t h e r i n v e n t o r s
in F r a n c e , E n g l a n d , a n d the U n i t e d States w e r e also p r o d u c i n g early
projectors in 1896. E d i s o n s i m p l y p u r c h a s e d the m a r k e t i n g rights to
A r m a t ' s m a c h i n e s o h e c o u l d p u t his a m p l e l e v e r a g e in the m a r k e t p l a c e
b e h i n d it w i t h o u t fear of getting s h u t out. S o o n theaters all over the
w o r l d w e r e enjoying the c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n E d i s o n ' s Vitascope a n d a
F r e n c h - p r o d u c e d projector. T h e n a third force entered the projector
m a r k e t : A m e r i c a n M u t o s c o p e C o m p a n y , w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d a projector
called the B i o g r a p h . E d i s o n ' s f o r m e r e m p l o y e e D i c k s o n h a d d e v e l o p e d
the B i o g r a p h . Its success a n g e r e d E d i s o n a n d h a s t e n e d the c o m p a n y to
c h a n g e its n a m e to the A m e r i c a n M u t o s c o p e a n d B i o g r a p h C o m p a n y
a n d later just the B i o g r a p h . T h e B i o g r a p h w o r k e d so w e l l that it quickly
displaced the projector c o m p e t i t i o n from v a u d e v i l l e t h e a t e r s . 11

T h r e e c o m p a n i e s — E d i s o n , B i o g r a p h , a n d V i t a g r a p h — p r o d u c e d al-
m o s t all of the films released b e t w e e n 1895 a n d 1903. N o t c o i n c i d e n t a l l y
they also l e a s e d out the projection e q u i p m e n t n e e d e d to s h o w their
films. F i l m m a k i n g w a s still rather c h e a p , a n d m o s t of the films w e r e of
actions s u c h as trains a p p r o a c h i n g or p e o p l e dancing. T h e s e c o m p a n i e s
m a d e m o s t of their m o n e y from exploiting their projector p a t e n t s . Soon,
the lure of f i l m m a k i n g p r o v e d attractive to small entrepreneurs. To get
a r o u n d E d i s o n ' s patents on c a m e r a s a n d p r o d u c t i o n tools, t h e y either
i m p o r t e d c a m e r a s from E u r o p e or h a c k e d t h e m . S o m e b e c a m e so g o o d
at h a c k i n g e q u i p m e n t that they started selling it, u n d e r c u t t i n g E d i s o n ' s
prices. So E d i s o n f o u g h t b a c k w i t h a b a r r a g e of p a t e n t suits. S o o n Edi-
son's l a w y e r s w e r e c l a i m i n g that a n y o n e w h o shot, p r o d u c e d , m a r -
k e t e d , or projected m o t i o n pictures w a s infringing o n his original
patents, going b a c k to the K i n e t o s c o p e . W h i l e the small film c o m p a n i e s
h a d g e n e r a t e d the suits in the first place, E d i s o n a i m e d for his larger
competitors, B i o g r a p h a n d Vitagraph. E d i s o n s o o n f o r m e d a brief a n d
fragile alliance w i t h Vitagraph, so B i o g r a p h r e m a i n e d his archrival for
control of the m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y . 12

In a p a t e n t suit against B i o g r a p h , E d i s o n f o u n d c o l d comfort. T h e

court ruled that E d i s o n c o u l d enjoy his p a t e n t for his c a m e r a , b u t B i o -
g r a p h c o u l d also d e f e n d a p a t e n t o n its c a m e r a , w h i c h w o r k e d differ-
ently. T h e i n d u s t r y c o u l d h a v e b e e n stifled b y this flurry of litigation,
b u t the m a r k e t w a s too lucrative for that to h a p p e n . S o o n m o r e m i n o r
players entered the film p r o d u c t i o n a n d distribution practice, i n c l u d i n g
s u c h c o m p a n i e s as Selig, K a l e m , E s s a n a y a n d Lubin.
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 89

E d i s o n ' s attacks o n these n e w c o m e r s g e n e r a t e d the first m o t i o n pic-

ture c o p y r i g h t case, Edison v. Lubin, in 1903. C o n g r e s s h a d n o t s e e n fit to
insert the w o r d s " m o t i o n p i c t u r e " into the text of the copyright c o d e ,
a n d w o u l d n o t until 1912. B u t E d i s o n w a n t e d to protect his studio's
w o r k w i t h the s a m e tenacity h e protected his inventions. E a c h t i m e Edi-
son released a film, h e sent it to b e registered as a p h o t o g r a p h in the Li-
b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . After all, his l a w y e r s figured, a m o t i o n picture w a s
n o t h i n g b u t a series of p h o t o g r a p h s projected o n a screen.
In o n e case, E d i s o n ' s c i n e m a t o g r a p h e r s h a d filmed the christening
a n d l a u n c h of G e r m a n Kaiser W i l h e l m ' s y a c h t Meteor. E d i s o n sent b o t h
the n e g a t i v e a n d positive print of the film to the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s .
S o m e h o w , a s e g m e n t of the n e g a t i v e w a s separated f r o m the reel, and
E d i s o n ' s competitor, S i g m u n d Lubin, acquired it. L u b i n then m a d e a
positive print of the l a u n c h a n d released it for p u b l i c view. L u b i n ' s ar-
g u m e n t in defense of his actions w a s simple: c o p y r i g h t l a w d i d n o t pro-
tect m o t i o n pictures; a n d e v e n if it did, n o w h e r e on the f r a m e s of n e g a -
tives d i d E d i s o n leave the required c o p y r i g h t notice.
At the trial court level, E d i s o n lost. J u d g e Dallas a s k e d the defini-
tive question o n w h i c h this suit w o u l d rest: " I s a series of p h o t o g r a p h s ,
a r r a n g e d for use in a m a c h i n e for p r o d u c i n g t h e m in a p a n o r a m i c ef-
fect, entitled to registry a n d protection as a p h o t o g r a p h ? " T h e n Dallas
a n s w e r e d that q u e s t i o n himself. Since 1865, w h e n C o n g r e s s e x t e n d e d
copyright l a w to p h o t o g r a p h s , C o n g r e s s h a d n o t c o n s i d e r e d the pros-
pect of a c o m p l e t e l y n o v e l f o r m of expression. Dallas w r o t e ,

That section [of the U.S. copyright code] extended the copyright sys-
tem to " a n y " photograph, but not to an aggregation of photographs;
and I think that, to acquire the monopoly it confers, it is requisite that
every photograph, no matter how or for what purpose it may be con-
joined with others, shall be separately registered, and that the pre-
scribed notice of copyright shall be inscribed upon each of them,

D a l l a s p r o c l a i m e d that C o n g r e s s m u s t alter the text o f the l a w b e f o r e

courts c o u l d e x t e n d c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n to this n e w m e d i u m , this se-
ries of p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n as a w h o l e . This ruling s e r v e d to " s t i f f e n "
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c o p y r i g h t a s a p p l i e d to film a n d o t h e r n e w tech-
n o l o g i e s . If D a l l a s ' s ruling h a d s t o o d until C o n g r e s s c h a n g e d t h e l a w
in 1 9 1 2 , t h e m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y w o u l d h a v e b e e n e v e n m o r e
c h a o t i c t h a n it w a s . 1 3
 90 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

E d i s o n , h o w e v e r , did n o t w a n t to w a i t for C o n g r e s s to h e l p h i m .
E d i s o n i m m e d i a t e l y a p p e a l e d the case against L u b i n to the T h i r d Cir-
cuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s . T h e r e h e f o u n d j u d g e s willing to c o n s i d e r that
the protectable " e x p r e s s i o n " of a p h o t o g r a p h is w h a t v i e w e r s interpret
from it, n o t the particular a r r a n g e m e n t of the silver crystals o n the cel-
luloid substrate. In other w o r d s , w h a t matters a b o u t a strip of film is n o t
w h a t it e x p r e s s e s f r a m e b y f r a m e , b e c a u s e n o b o d y p a y s to see it f r a m e
b y f r a m e . P e o p l e p a y to see the effect of r u n n i n g a series of f r a m e s
t h r o u g h a lighted projector: the action o n the screen. T h e y p a y for the
effect of the technology, n o t the t e c h n o l o g y itself. In addition, the court
ruled that b y r e m o v i n g the ability of film p r o d u c e r s to profit from the
copyright m o n o p o l y , the l o w e r court h a d not d o n e all it c o u l d to apply
copyright l a w to " p r o m o t e the progress of science a n d useful a r t s . "
Therefore, the court ruled, E d i s o n ' s projected m o v i n g i m a g e of the
K a i s e r ' s y a c h t leaving a h a r b o r w a s protectable as o n e p h o t o g r a p h
u n d e r the c o p y r i g h t revision of 1 8 6 5 . 14

O n e m o n t h before the Third Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s ruled o n Edi-

son's a p p e a l of the l o w e r court decision, a n o t h e r federal court ruled on
a c o p y r i g h t suit that dealt directly w i t h d r a m a t i z a t i o n s , a n d obliquely
w i t h film representations a n d the idea / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy. Hattie
Delaro B a r n e s w a s a v a u d e v i l l e p e r f o r m e r of s o m e infamy. She w r o t e
a n d c o p y r i g h t e d h e r stage show, entitled X-Rays of Society, in 1897.
In the show, Barnes i m p e r s o n a t e d f a m o u s actors a n d actresses. B e -
t w e e n s c e n e s , she w o u l d exit the stage to c h a n g e c o s t u m e s . D u r i n g the
c h a n g e s , a projector s h o w e d scenes of h e r c h a n g i n g clothes in her dress-
ing r o o m a n d discussing the p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h h e r assistants.
B y 1900, B a r n e s ' s act w a s w e l l - k n o w n in N e w York C i t y a n d else-
w h e r e for its m u l t i m e d i a effects, h u m o r , a n d b a w d i n e s s . T h a t ' s w h e n a
theatrical m a n a g e r n a m e d E d w i n M i n e r d e c i d e d to p r o d u c e a s h o w
b a s e d o n B a r n e s ' s style. M i n e r a r r a n g e d for a thirty-six-inch-tall m a n ,
A d o l f Z i n k , to p e r f o r m similar scenes, p r e t e n d i n g to b e f a m o u s m e n
a n d w o m e n . D u r i n g the c h a n g e s , M i n e r projected m o t i o n pictures of
Z i n k c h a n g i n g in his dressing r o o m . Z i n k p e r f o r m e d different i m p e r -
sonations than B a r n e s , did n o t use her c o p y r i g h t e d script in a n y way,
a n d u s e d film of his o w n c o s t u m e c h a n g e s . B a r n e s s u e d M i n e r a n d
Z i n k , h o p i n g to c o n v i n c e the court that t h e y h a d infringed o n the c o p y -
rights of b o t h her dramatic p e r f o r m a n c e a n d the p h o t o g r a p h s that
m a d e u p the c o s t u m e c h a n g e s . First, the court t r a c e d the similarities b e -
t w e e n the p e r f o r m a n c e s . T h e similarities w e r e significant. B u t they
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 91

w e r e n o t necessarily i n f r i n g e m e n t s . T h e court d e c i d e d , h o w e v e r , that

the differences b e t w e e n the acts w e r e great e n o u g h to rule in favor of
the d e f e n d a n t s , Z i n k a n d Miner. " I t is a p p a r e n t that the exhibition given
b y the d e f e n d a n t s is u n l i k e that given b y the plaintiff, except that the
general p l a n or plot of s h o w i n g rapid c h a n g e s of c o s t u m e b y m e a n s of
p h o t o g r a p h i c films a n d the K i n e t o s c o p e [probably a V i t a s c o p e — a Kine-
toscope w o u l d not project] is substantially the s a m e , " w r o t e J u d g e Ray.
" T h e m a i n idea a n d p u r p o s e of each p e r f o r m a n c e is to exhibit to the a u -
dience b y m e a n s of m o v i n g pictures a n d the use of the K i n e t o s c o p e a n d
a screen a n d d a r k e n e d r o o m a h u m a n b e i n g in n u d e or s e m i n u d e con-
ditions m a k i n g q u i c k c h a n g e s of dress or c o s t u m e . " R a y also expressed
concern that s u c h n u d i t y m i g h t render B a r n e s ' s c o p y r i g h t invalid any-
way, b e c a u s e c o p y r i g h t l a w did not protect l e w d or o b s c e n e expressions
at that t i m e . R a y did express reservations about w h e t h e r enforcing
B a r n e s ' s copyright w o u l d in fact " p r o m o t e the progress of science or
useful a r t s . " B u t h e p u t that issue aside. R a y d e c i d e d to b a s e the court's
ruling o n the fact that the d e f e n d a n t s did n o t take a n y t h i n g " s u b s t a n -
tial or m a t e r i a l " from B a r n e s ' s p e r f o r m a n c e , " e x c e p t the m e r e idea of
representing r a p i d c h a n g e s of clothing b y a h u m a n b e i n g . " 15

Also in 1903, E d i s o n released a film that w o u l d increase the creative

potential of film a n d raise the ante in its relationship w i t h c o p y r i g h t
law. E d i s o n ' s studio m a d e the first A m e r i c a n film to tell a story: The
Great Train Robbery. A n E d i s o n e m p l o y e e n a m e d E d w i n S. Porter di-
rected the film, w h i c h w a s l o n g e r (1,100 feet) t h a n a n y p r e v i o u s A m e r -
ican p r o d u c t i o n . Porter, u n l i k e p r e v i o u s directors, did n o t just t u r n o n a
c a m e r a a n d ask his actors to m i m e actions a n d e m o t i o n s . H e edited. T h e
final p r o d u c t captivated a u d i e n c e s w i t h a silent story of a h o l d u p , an
exciting pursuit, a n d a thrilling capture. All s u b s e q u e n t films h a d to tell
g o o d stories just to m a k e a n i m p a c t o n the public i m a g i n a t i o n . E d w i n
Porter, w h o w o u l d later hire a struggling writer a n d actor n a m e d D a v i d
W a r k Griffith to star in a film called Rescued from an Eagles Nest (1908),
h a d raised the expectations of b o t h m o v i e m a k e r s a n d their a u d i e n c e s . 16

In 1905, the battle b e t w e e n B i o g r a p h a n d E d i s o n spilled over from

patent a n d distribution conflicts into copyright. T h a t year, first Bio-
graph, then E d i s o n , m a d e films that d e p i c t e d the s a m e slapstick c o m -
e d y routine. In b o t h films, a m a n places a p e r s o n a l a d in a daily N e w
York n e w s p a p e r . T h e m a n seeks a n attractive w o m a n , a n d the a d re-
quests that s u c h a w o m a n a p p e a r at G r a n t ' s Tomb to m e e t the m a n , w h o
h o p e s to m a r r y the w o m a n . First o n e w o m a n a p p r o a c h e s h i m , then
 92 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

another, then d o z e n s m o r e run t o w a r d h i m . T h e m a n runs. O n e of the

w o m e n finally catches the m a n a n d forces h i m at g u n p o i n t to c o m e with
her. T h e B i o g r a p h p r o d u c t i o n w a s called Personal. Edison's company
w a s n o t so e c o n o m i c a l w i t h its u s e of w o r d s , a n d entitled its version
How a French Nobleman Got a Wife through the New York Herald Personal
Columns. T h e court e x a m i n e d b o t h films a n d d e t e r m i n e d that w h i l e the
story w a s a l m o s t exactly the s a m e in both, the a n g l e s of certain shots
a r o u n d G r a n t ' s Tomb w e r e different, a n d the s u b s e q u e n t c h a s e scenes
w e r e shot in different locations: the B i o g r a p h scenes a r o u n d N e w York;
the E d i s o n scenes in N e w Jersey.
E d i s o n ' s c i n e m a t o g r a p h e r d e f e n d e d himself b y telling the court,

Each impression is a photograph of a pantomime arranged by me, and

enacted for me at the expense of the owner of the film which I pro-
duced. My photograph is not a copy, but an original. It carries out my
own idea or conception of how the characters, especially the French
nobleman, should appear as to costume, expression, figure, bearing,
posing, gestures, postures, and action.

A l l o w i n g that p r e l i m i n a r y e v i d e n c e indicated that E d i s o n took o n l y the

idea for the film, n o t the specific expressions, from B i o g r a p h , J u d g e
L a n n i n g d e n i e d B i o g r a p h ' s request for a n injunction against Edison.
After B i o g r a p h failed to stop E d i s o n f r o m p r o d u c i n g a film b a s e d on the
s a m e idea as o n e of its o w n films, it s h o u l d b e n o surprise that B i o g r a p h
w a s b r a v e e n o u g h to release The Death Disc four years l a t e r . 17

B y 1908, all the major players in the m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y w e r e

y e a r n i n g for stability a n d relief f r o m r a m p a n t litigation. T h e fiercest ri-
vals in the i n d u s t r y — i n c l u d i n g E d i s o n a n d B i o g r a p h — s e t t l e d their dif-
ferences that year b y forging the M o t i o n Picture Patents C o m p a n y , a
trust of ten c o m p a n i e s that o w n e d all the patents essential to m o v i e -
m a k i n g . T h e trust w o u l d license the use of its patents o n l y to each other.
E a s t m a n K o d a k colluded b y a l l o w i n g o n l y trust m e m b e r s to b u y its
film. T h e c o m p a n i e s w o u l d u s e o n l y distributors w h o a g r e e d to their set
price s c h e d u l e a n d e x c l u d e d i n d e p e n d e n t films. T h e theaters could
s h o w o n l y Patents C o m p a n y films o n Patents C o m p a n y projectors. B u t
the m o s t p o w e r f u l w e a p o n the Patents C o m p a n y d e p l o y e d w a s the
lawsuit. It hired private investigators to w e e d out p a t e n t violators.
T h e c o m p a n y drove m o s t of the i n d e p e n d e n t s a w a y from the N e w
Y o r k - N e w J e r s e y area, w h i c h w a s the center of the industry, to S o u t h -
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 93

ern California, w h e r e e n f o r c e m e n t w a s looser a n d e s c a p e to M e x i c o

possible. T h e survival of i n d e p e n d e n t s , a n d the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of Holly-
w o o d , t e m p t e d s o m e film distribution c o m p a n i e s to d e f y the trust. Such
an offense s p u r r e d the trust to create its o w n distribution company,
w h i c h b o u g h t out or intimidated all b u t o n e of the smaller i n d e p e n d e n t
distributors. T h e sole survivor, W i l l i a m F o x of the Greater N e w York
Film R e n t a l C o m p a n y , f o u g h t b a c k w i t h a n antitrust suit against the
Patents C o m p a n y . F o x w o n , a n d the trust disintegrated, b u t the d o m i -
n a n t forces of the m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y struggled for the rest of the
twentieth c e n t u r y to limit c o m p e t i t i o n t h r o u g h s u c h practices as " v e r t i -
cal i n t e g r a t i o n " or " s y n e r g y . " 18

Despite its f o r m i d a b l e p o w e r , the Patents C o m p a n y set a b o u t starv-

ing itself e v e n before the courts killed it for g o o d in 1918. B y 1914, pro-
liferating i n d e p e n d e n t m o v i e p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n i e s released m o r e and
m o r e interesting films than ever before. T h e r e w a s too m u c h m o n e y at
stake to p l a y b y the p l a y g r o u n d rules. Ignoring p o p u l a r s e n t i m e n t s , the
trust c o m p a n i e s s h o w e d little interest in d e v e l o p i n g stables of stars,
training talented directors, a n d p u s h i n g the creative limits of film. T h e
trust strived to m a r k e t a u n i f o r m c o m m o d i t y the p u b l i c h a d to buy. B y
keeping the a u d i e n c e s ' expectations low, the trust c o m p a n i e s h o p e d to
k e e p their salaries a n d m a r k e t i n g costs l o w as well. T h e y k n e w excel-
lence a n d creativity w o u l d b e costly o n the s u p p l y side, a n d free m a r -
ket c o m p e t i t i o n w o u l d b e e x p e n s i v e on the d e m a n d side. B u t the c o m -
petition g r e w n o n e t h e l e s s , a n d so did creativity. In 1913, D . W. Griffith
left a N e w York Patents company, B i o g r a p h , to f o r m a n i n d e p e n d e n t
c o m p a n y out in H o l l y w o o d . Griffith's b r e a k w i t h B i o g r a p h s y m b o l i z e d
m o r e than e g o a n d a m b i t i o n . It e m p h a t i c a l l y s h o w e d that v a r i e t y in a
m a r k e t p l a c e bolsters creativity, a n d t h u s p r o m o t e s " s c i e n c e a n d the
useful a r t s . " 19

THE STRANGE CAREER OF BEN-HUR

O n e case that m i g h t h a v e altered B i o g r a p h ' s p l a n s to exploit M a r k

Twain's w o r k g e n e r a t e d a ruling on a p p e a l in M a r c h 1909, eight m o n t h s
before B i o g r a p h released The Death Disc. Ultimately, the case over a film
version of the best-selling n o v e l Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ did n o t
deter either Griffith or B i o g r a p h . G e n e r a l L e w Wallace, a U n i o n Civil
War h e r o , w r o t e Ben-Hur in 1880. It sold at least t w o million copies in
 94 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

his lifetime. T h e b o o k tells the s t o r y of J u d a h B e n - H u r , a J e w w r o n g l y

a c c u s e d of plotting to kill the R o m a n g o v e r n o r of J u d e a . B e n - H u r is sen-
t e n c e d to the galleys, a n d R o m a n authorities i m p r i s o n his sister a n d
mother. H e e s c a p e s , disguises h i m s e l f as a R o m a n officer, a n d w i n s a
chariot race against the rival w h o f r a m e d h i m . B e n - H u r rescues his f a m -
ily, w h o h a v e contracted leprosy. After Christ cures their disease, the en-
tire f a m i l y converts to Christianity. 20

Wallace died in 1905. His w i f e , a u t h o r S u s a n A r n o l d Wallace, died

t w o years later. B u t Wallace h a d a s s i g n e d the p u b l i s h i n g rights to
H a r p e r a n d Brothers p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e a n d a s s i g n e d the dramatization
rights to a stage p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y called K l a w a n d Erlanger. T h e
dramatization, b y William Young, w a s p u b l i s h e d a n d c o p y r i g h t e d in
1899. K a l e m C o m p a n y , u n a w a r e of the a u t h o r i z e d dramatization, e m -
p l o y e d a writer to read the n o v e l Ben-Hur a n d s u b m i t a treatment of it.
T h e film that c a m e f r o m that treatment p o r t r a y e d o n l y select scenes
from the novel, s u c h as the chariot race.
W h i l e considering the case b e t w e e n the a u t h o r i z e d p u b l i s h e r a n d
the u n a u t h o r i z e d filmmaker, the federal appeals c o u r t h a d to a n s w e r
t w o questions: D i d this film constitute a " d r a m a t i z a t i o n " u n d e r federal
copyright law? A n d w a s the projection of the film for p u b l i c c o n s u m p -
tion a n d profit a " p u b l i c p e r f o r m a n c e " ? In o t h e r w o r d s , the court sepa-
rated the t w o m o d e s of p o s s i b l e infringement, saying that a film could
infringe o n the b o o k w i t h o u t infringing on the dramatization, or o n the
d r a m a t i z a t i o n w i t h o u t infringing on the b o o k . Strangely, the court
ruled that the film did not infringe o n the b o o k c o p y r i g h t b e c a u s e " p i c -
tures o n l y represent the artist's i d e a of w h a t the a u t h o r h a s e x p r e s s e d in
w o r d s . " A n s w e r i n g the s e c o n d question, the court ruled that the film
w a s e x h i b i t e d for " p u b l i c p e r f o r m a n c e " a n d therefore did infringe on
K l a w a n d E r l a n g e r ' s exclusive rights to d r a m a t i z e the story. So the
j u d g e r u l e d that the m o t i o n picture w a s n o t a d r a m a t i z a t i o n of the
n o v e l , b u t that its exhibition did constitute a p u b l i c p e r f o r m a n c e of the
play, despite the facts that the film h a d n o s p o k e n dialogue a n d the
screenwriters h a d n o t read the play. J u d g e W a r d w r o t e , " [ W ] e h a v e n o
difficulty in c o n c l u d i n g that m o v i n g pictures w o u l d b e a f o r m of ex-
pression infringing not the c o p y r i g h t e d b o o k or d r a m a , b u t infringing
the a u t h o r ' s exclusive right to d r a m a t i z e his writings a n d publicly to
p e r f o r m s u c h d r a m a t i z a t i o n . " S u c h a c o n f u s i n g ruling c o u l d h a r d l y be
e x p e c t e d to clearly g u i d e the actions of the m o t i o n picture industry.
Confusion reigned. 21
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 95

It took the p r a g m a t i c m i n d of S u p r e m e C o u r t Justice Oliver Wen-

dell H o l m e s Jr. to clarify the Ben-Hur saga a n d m a k e sense of w h a t m a y
b e protectable w h e n a story is transferred from print to film. H o l m e s
w a s m o r e familiar w i t h the e v o l u t i o n of c o p y r i g h t l a w arid the i d e a / e x -
pression d i c h o t o m y than w e r e m o s t federal j u d g e s . A s executor of his
father's literary estate, H o l m e s h a d b e e n a frustrated plaintiff in several
copyright cases. In addition, H o l m e s h a d b y 1911 issued S u p r e m e C o u r t
opinions in t w o l a n d m a r k c o p y r i g h t cases that altered the c o u r s e and
current of A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t law. T h e m o s t significant H o l m e s deci-
sion w a s in the 1903 case Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithograph Co. T h e de-
fendant h a d copied three circus p o s t e r s the plaintiffs h a d originally cre-
ated. L o w e r courts h a d ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that adver-
t i s e m e n t s w e r e n o t protected b y copyright l a w s . But H o l m e s t r u m p e d
d e c a d e s of case l a w — n o t to m e n t i o n the s t a t u t e — b y b l u n t l y stating,
" C e r t a i n l y w o r k s are n o t the less c o n n e c t e d w i t h the fine arts b e c a u s e
their pictorial quality attracts the c r o w d a n d therefore gives t h e m a real
u s e — i f use m e a n s to increase trade a n d to h e l p to m a k e m o n e y . A pic-
ture is n o n e the less a picture a n d n o n e the less a subject of c o p y r i g h t
that it is u s e d for an a d v e r t i s e m e n t . A n d if pictures m a y b e u s e d to a d -
vertise s o a p , or the theater, o r m o n t h l y m a g a z i n e s , as t h e y are, t h e y m a y
b e u s e d to advertise a c i r c u s . " In o n e fell s w o o p , H o l m e s , the frustrated
copyright plaintiff a n d literary executor, h a d substantially e x p a n d e d
copyright p r o t e c t i o n b e y o n d its i n t e n d e d p u r p o s e , w i t h o u t legislative
consideration. 22

B y the time the S u p r e m e C o u r t h e a r d the a p p e a l of the Ben-Hur

case, Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., H o l m e s h a d a l r e a d y declared h i m s e l f
willing to p e r s o n a l l y rewrite c o p y r i g h t l a w as h e s a w fit. M o s t of the
other justices w e r e w i l l i n g to g o along w i t h h i m , despite H o l m e s ' s pos-
sible bias against " s e c o n d t a k e r s , " or those w h o w o u l d create derivative
w o r k s . A s if to invite H o l m e s to substantially o v e r h a u l film a n d deriv-
ative w o r k s law, the appeals court h a d h a n d e d u p a m e s s y a n d useless
decision c o n c e r n i n g Ben-Hur. H o l m e s did not disappoint the plaintiffs.
" S o , if the exhibition w a s or w a s f o u n d e d o n a dramatizing of Ben-Hur
this copyright w a s i n f r i n g e d , " H o l m e s wrote.

Action can tell a story, display all the most vivid relations between
men, and depict every kind of human emotion without the aid of a
word. It would be impossible to deny the title of drama to pantomime
as played by masters of the a r t . . . . The essence of the matter in the case
 96 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

last supposed is not the mechanism employed but that we see the
event or story lived. The moving pictures are only less vivid than re-
flections from a mirror.

Since this decision, n e w m e d i a a n d f o r m s of expression a n d r e p r o d u c -

tion h a v e n o t e s c a p e d from or threatened the practice of c o p y r i g h t law.
C o n g r e s s h a s n o t h a d to go b a c k a n d a d d l a n g u a g e to the c o d e every
time s o m e o n e i n v e n t e d a n e w m a c h i n e .
In anticipation of c o m p l a i n t s that the C o u r t w e n t b e y o n d its d u t y in
substantially e x p a n d i n g c o p y r i g h t protection, H o l m e s confronted the
i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y b y e v a d i n g it. " I t is a r g u e d that the l a w
construed as w e h a v e c o n s t r u e d it goes b e y o n d the p o w e r conferred
u p o n C o n g r e s s b y the C o n s t i t u t i o n to secure to authors for a limited
time the exclusive right to their w r i t i n g s , " H o l m e s wrote.

It is suggested that to extend the copyright to a case like this is to ex-

tend it to the ideas as distinguished from the words in which those
ideas are clothed. But there is no attempt to make a monopoly of the
ideas expressed. The law confines itself to a particular, cognate and
well-known form of reproduction. If to that extent a grant of monop-
oly is thought a proper way to secure the right to writings this court
can not say that Congress was wrong.

Certainly, b y defining a film as a dramatization, H o l m e s w a s s i m p l y

e m p l o y i n g c o m m o n sense. A n d since C o n g r e s s h a d since 1870 reserved
the right to d r a m a t i z e to copyright h o l d e r s , H o l m e s w a s n o t b y h i m s e l f
shredding the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy, b e c a u s e C o n g r e s s h a d al-
r e a d y cut a big h o l e in it. H o w e v e r , the financial a n d cultural p o w e r of
m o t i o n pictures m a d e the h o l e e v e n wider, w h i c h w o u l d n o t h a v e trou-
bled H o l m e s . 23

D.W. G R I F F I T H : L E G A L P I O N E E R

Despite a h a n d f u l of court rulings, film c o p y r i g h t a n d derivative w o r k s

l a w o c c u p i e d u n p l o w e d legal territory during the first f e w d e c a d e s of
the film industry. E v e n as late as 1 9 1 8 , Griffith a n d his partners w e r e u n -
clear to w h a t extent f i l m m a k e r s h a d to secure the rights to stories, a n d
w h a t of their w o r k s w o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m u s e b y others. Kalem v.
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 97

Harper Bros, h a d b e e n a clear-cut case of the appropriation, w i t h little al-

teration, of a m a j o r n o v e l still protected b y copyright. But m o s t w o r k s
a n d the films b a s e d o n t h e m i n h a b i t e d g r a y areas i n the law. T h e r e is
no available e v i d e n c e that s u g g e s t s Griffith a s k e d for or received per-
m i s s i o n from T w a i n to d r a m a t i z e " T h e D e a t h D i s k . " H o w e v e r , Griffith
occasionally p r o d u c e d films that w e r e a u t h o r i z e d retellings of pro-
tected w o r k s .
Before 1910, B i o g r a p h released a series of films b a s e d on literary
w o r k s in the public d o m a i n s u c h as Resurrection: Free Adaptation of Leo
Tolstoy's Powerful Novel (1909), Leather Stocking: Freely Adapted from the
Tales of James Fenimore Cooper (1909), a n d A Fair Exchange: Free Adaptation
of George Eliot's Silas Marner (1909). Griffith also m a d e several films that
w e r e u n a c k n o w l e d g e d d r a m a t i z a t i o n s of p o p u l a r w o r k s t h e n u n d e r
copyright protection. In addition to The Death Disc in 1909, Griffith
m a d e For Love of Gold (1908), a n a d a p t a t i o n of the J a c k L o n d o n story
"Just M e a t " (1907), a film v e r s i o n of L o n d o n ' s The Call of the Wild (1908),
a n d a film entitled A Corner in Wheat (1909), w h i c h w a s b a s e d o n a n un-
a c k n o w l e d g e d F r a n k Norris short story called " A D e a l in W h e a t . " Grif-
fith b i o g r a p h e r R o b e r t H e n d e r s o n w r o t e that officials at B i o g r a p h w e r e
cavalier a b o u t using u n a u t h o r i z e d literary s o u r c e s for their treatments
a n d shooting scripts. B i o g r a p h p r o d u c e d films s o q u i c k l y a n d pulled
t h e m from circulation so fast that t h e y s e e m e d u n c o n c e r n e d b y a n y
legal ramifications. In addition, B i o g r a p h e m p l o y e d several writers, in-
cluding Griffith (before h e m o v e d to directing), to w r i t e t h r e e - h u n d r e d -
w o r d " o r i g i n a l " treatments for short films. M o s t of the B i o g r a p h films
b e t w e e n 1908 a n d 1913 w e r e b a s e d o n treatments a n d scripts that Bio-
graph commissioned. 24

At least o n e of these a t t e m p t s to a d a p t a p o p u l a r story to film with-

out p e r m i s s i o n did g e n e r a t e legal ramifications. In the y e a r J a c k Lon-
d o n d i e d , 1916, h e lost a lawsuit against B i o g r a p h c o n c e r n i n g his story
"Just M e a t " a n d the s u b s e q u e n t film For Love of Gold. T h e story a n d the
film share a similar plot a n d setting: Two thieves steal s o m e m o n e y and
jewelry. T h e y a r g u e over h o w t h e y will divide the loot. E a c h p o i s o n s the
other. T h e y b o t h die. T h e film differs from the short story in the m a n n e r
of the original c r i m e a n d the b e v e r a g e s that the criminals u s e to kill each
other. Reflecting on the plot similarities, the j u d g e w r o t e that the central
plot to b o t h tales is older t h a n the L o n d o n story. C h a u c e r ' s " P a r d o n e r ' s
T a l e , " R u d y a r d K i p l i n g ' s Second Jungle Book, a n d m a n y ancient folktales
contain similar " c r i m e d o e s not p a y " scenarios. " T h e plot is c o m m o n
 98 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

p r o p e r t y , " the j u d g e w r o t e . " N o o n e b y p r e s e n t i n g it w i t h m o d e r n inci-

dents can a p p r o p r i a t e it b y c o p y r i g h t i n g . " T h e j u d g e a l l o w e d that L o n -
don a d d e d m u c h to his v e r s i o n of the story, not least a g l i m p s e of p s y -
chological insight a n d m o t i v a t i o n for the thieves. H o w e v e r , Griffith w a s
u n a b l e or u n w i l l i n g to p u r s u e s u c h issues. " T h e c o p y r i g h t c a n n o t p r o -
tect the f u n d a m e n t a l plot, w h i c h w a s c o m m o n p r o p e r t y l o n g before the
story w a s written; it will protect the e m b e l l i s h m e n t s w i t h w h i c h the a u -
thor a d d e d elements of literary v a l u e to the old plot, b u t it will not o p -
erate to prohibit the p r e s e n t a t i o n b y s o m e o n e else of the s a m e old plot
w i t h o u t the particular e m b e l l i s h m e n t s , " the j u d g e ruled. Therefore,
e v e n if Twain h a d p u r s u e d a c o m p l a i n t against Griffith or B i o g r a p h for
u s i n g " T h e D e a t h D i s k , " h e w o u l d n o t h a v e fared better t h a n J a c k L o n -
don d i d . 25

B i o g r a p h bulletins a n d records indicate a n e n d to reckless u n a u -

thorized a d a p t a t i o n in M a y of 1910, w h e n B i o g r a p h released a n a u -
thorized v e r s i o n of H e l e n H u n t J a c k s o n ' s best-seller Ramona. T h e film
starred M a r y Pickford a n d u s e d the gentle a n d consistent climate of
S o u t h e r n California for its e x p a n s i v e o u t d o o r shots. B i o g r a p h p u r -
chased the rights for Ramona f r o m the p u b l i s h i n g h o u s e of Little, B r o w n
a n d C o m p a n y for $100, four times w h a t B i o g r a p h p a i d its o w n writers
per treatment. T h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t for the film b o a s t e d of its a u t h o r i z e d
status: " A d a p t e d f r o m the n o v e l of H e l e n J a c k s o n b y a r r a n g e m e n t with
Little, B r o w n & C o m p a n y . " T h e r e is a g o o d c h a n c e that Griffith's Ra-
mona w a s the first film to rely o n a literary s o u r c e secured w i t h p e r m i s -
sion a n d p a y m e n t . P e r h a p s Griffith, B i o g r a p h executives, a n d their
lawyers d e v e l o p e d an institutional c o n c e r n for c o p y r i g h t issues in the
w a k e of the p a s s a g e of the copyright l a w of 1909, w h i c h attracted s u b -
stantial press attention. Coincidentally, at least, B i o g r a p h c h a n g e d its
b e h a v i o r a r o u n d the s a m e t i m e C o n g r e s s c h a n g e d the l a w . 26

F i l m c o p y r i g h t in the early years of the i n d u s t r y w a s g u e s s w o r k .

All that f i l m m a k e r s a n d their l a w y e r s c o u l d b e sure a b o u t w a s that their
final p r o d u c t c o u l d enjoy protection from piracy, b u t they w e r e n ' t al-
w a y s sure of the p r o c e d u r e s n e e d e d to e n s u r e that p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r the
rapidly c h a n g i n g l a w s . E v e n then, f i l m m a k e r s w a n t e d to h a v e the l a w
w o r k b o t h w a y s for t h e m : l o w protection of original printed w o r k s that
t h e y c o u l d exploit for d r a m a t i c adaptation, a n d h i g h protection for their
o w n finished p r o d u c t s .
In the w a k e of the e a r l y film copyright cases, a d v a n c e s in technol-
ogy, a n d the g r o w i n g p o p u l a r i t y a n d profitability of n a r r a t i v e film,
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 99

C o n g r e s s set a b o u t rewriting A m e r i c a n copyright l a w s . T h e first at-

t e m p t at w h o l e s a l e revision, in 1906, h a d failed, despite the t e s t i m o n y
of l u m i n a r i e s s u c h as M a r k Twain in s u p p o r t of the bill. But b y 1909,
C o n g r e s s w a s r e a d y to u n d e r t a k e the effort a n d President William
H o w a r d Taft w a s willing to sign it. To C o n g r e s s , c o p y r i g h t w a s still
m a i n l y a b o u t b o o k s , m a g a z i n e s , a n d the p r e v e n t i o n of p i r a c y of both.
T h e n e w l a w did n o t c o n c e r n itself w i t h film, idea protection, or the dy-
n a m i c s of transferring a story f r o m one m e d i u m to another. T h e chief
c h a n g e instigated b y the 1909 l a w w a s the extension of the copyright
term from f o u r t e e n years (renewable for a n o t h e r f o u r t e e n years) to
twenty-eight years ( r e n e w a b l e for a n o t h e r t w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s ) . It also
e x t e n d e d copyright to the m e c h a n i c a l r e p r o d u c t i o n s of m u s i c , a n d clar-
ified the registration process.
T h e m o s t significant c h a n g e in the 1909 revision, h o w e v e r , w a s
largely u n e x p e c t e d . T h e n e w l a w created a n e w definition of author-
ship: corporate a u t h o r s h i p . B y 1912, C o n g r e s s a c k n o w l e d g e d that
courts n e e d e d g u i d a n c e a n d c o n f i d e n c e w h e n ruling that films w e r e a
w o r t h y subject of traditional c o p y r i g h t law. So in a brief revision to the
law, C o n g r e s s a d d e d " m o t i o n picture p h o t o p l a y s " to the list of pro-
tected m e t h o d s of representation in the l a w . 27

Coincidentally, D . W. Griffith left B i o g r a p h in 1913 to establish his

o w n c o m p a n y . T h e n h e set a b o u t trying to figure out h o w to capitalize
on these c h a n g e s . First, his l a w y e r s h a d to learn the formalities of the
n e w c o p y r i g h t law. O n S e p t e m b e r 5 , 1 9 1 4 , F r a n k W o o d s , the story edi-
tor of Griffith's n e w M u t u a l Film C o r p o r a t i o n , w r o t e to Griffith's N e w
York l a w y e r to inquire h o w best to protect the n e w films f r o m b o t h
p i r a c y a n d derivative w o r k s s u c h as plays or n o v e l s b a s e d o n the orig-
inal films. W o o d s s u g g e s t e d that the studio w a s willing to prepare and
register short stories b a s e d o n the p r o p o s e d shooting scripts, so they
w o u l d at least h a v e s o m e m i n i m a l i d e a protection. T h e lawyer, Albert
Banzhaf, i m m e d i a t e l y w r o t e to the Librarian of C o n g r e s s to request
the text of the copyright l a w so that h e c o u l d register Griffith's u p c o m -
ing f i l m s . 28

After receiving a n u n h e l p f u l reply from T h o r v a l d Solberg, the reg-

istrar of copyrights at the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , B a n z h a f a g a i n w r o t e to
Solberg. This time B a n z h a f w a n t e d to k n o w w h e t h e r the copyright of-
fice w o u l d require c o m p l e t e reels of film to register the film, or w h e t h e r
a treatment or script w o u l d suffice. B a n z h a f also a s k e d Solberg w h e t h e r
a copyright on a particular film w o u l d also protect the story of the film,
 100 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

p r e v e n t i n g a " s e c o n d t a k e r " from w r i t i n g a short story b a s e d o n it. If

not, B a n z h a f w o n d e r e d w h e t h e r h e c o u l d register a separate short story
to p r e e m p t s u c h a derivation a n d thus protect the u n d e r l y i n g story. Sol-
b e r g replied to B a n z h a f w i t h a n e x p l a n a t i o n that s e e m e d to e n d o r s e the
n o t i o n that a copyright h o l d e r c o u l d register a story in each m e d i u m in
w h i c h s h e or h e desired protection. " W h e t h e r c o p y r i g h t for a m o t i o n
picture w o u l d secure the right to prevent the r e p r o d u c t i o n of a story
b a s e d u p o n the m o t i o n picture is a question w h i c h the C o p y r i g h t Of-
fice c o u l d n o t authoritatively d e c i d e , " S o l b e r g w r o t e . " T h e proprietor
w o u l d h a v e the privilege of c l a i m i n g c o p y r i g h t for the story, h o w e v e r ,
a n d c o u l d register the claim b y p r o c e e d i n g as in the case of a b o o k ; that
is, b y p u b l i s h i n g the story w i t h the copyright notice a n d afterward de-
positing the n e c e s s a r y c o p i e s , application, a n d fee in this office for reg-
istration." We can infer from S o l b e r g ' s letter that at the t i m e story p r o -
tection w o r k e d o n l y o n e w a y : from print to dramatization. Registering
a film w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p r e v e n t s o m e o n e f r o m staging a p l a y or
p u b l i s h i n g a n o v e l b a s e d o n a film, as the text of the l a w still privileged
printed text a n d n o courts h a d ruled o n the issue. H o w e v e r , since 1870,
the text of the l a w h a d a l l o w e d a u t h o r s of p r i n t e d w o r k s to control
translations a n d d r a m a t i z a t i o n s . 29

A s Griffith b e c a m e m o r e successful, his o b s e s s i o n w i t h protecting

his stories a n d titles increased, e v e n t h o u g h the l a w at the t i m e g e n e r -
ally failed to s u p p o r t copyright protection for either. In 1914, B a n z h a f
w r o t e to F r a n k W o o d s to e x p l a i n the copyright p r o c e d u r e . It w a s
B a n z h a f ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , from his c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h Solberg, that
protecting a story w a s as e a s y as registering a short story or treatment,
then s u b m i t t i n g t w o copies of the final film to the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s .
B a n z h a f e x p l a i n e d to W o o d s that Griffith c o u l d h o p e to control the
rights o n l y to the film v e r s i o n of The Clansman—later retitled The Birth
of a Nation—because the rights to the story w o u l d r e m a i n u n d e r the con-
trol of T h o m a s D i x o n , w h o w r o t e the b o o k a n d play. In other w o r d s ,
Griffith c o u l d p r e v e n t p i r a c y of his film, b u t n o t s u b s e q u e n t use of a
similar story b y a n o t h e r writer. B a n z h a f also told W o o d s that films
b a s e d o n treatments or scripts m a d e " i n h o u s e " c o u l d enjoy a h i g h e r
level of protection. Specifically, B a n z h a f declared that Griffith could
p o s s i b l y protect b o t h the film itself a n d the u n d e r l y i n g story of his pic-
tures s u c h as Home Sweet Home (1914), w h i c h w a s b a s e d on an original
Griffith treatment, a n d The Avenging Conscience (1914), w h i c h w a s an
adaptation of E d g a r A l l a n P o e ' s " T h e Tell-Tale H e a r t " (1843). B a n z h a f
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 101

s u g g e s t e d that for e v e r y picture Griffith p l a n n e d to m a k e , h e s u b m i t a

treatment to the copyright office long before the actual reels of film
could b e r e g i s t e r e d . 30

Griffith's l a w y e r s a p p a r e n t l y b e l i e v e d that c o p y r i g h t l a w granted

exclusive u s e of a title for a w o r k . It n e v e r h a s . In 1918, B a n z h a f w r o t e
a threatening " c e a s e a n d d e s i s t " letter to a n o t h e r s t u d i o — W o r l d Film
C o r p o r a t i o n of N e w York City. B a n z h a f h a d s e e n a n a d in a n issue of
Moving Picture World for a film called Heart of a World, b u t h a d n o t seen
the film or read a treatment a b o u t it. Griffith h a d released a twelve-reel
film a b o u t the w a r in E u r o p e called Hearts of the World in M a r c h of 1918.
It b e c a m e a great success for Griffith, b u t there is n o r e a s o n to believe
that the W o r l d Film C o r p o r a t i o n p r o d u c t i o n of Heart of the World either
detracted f r o m Griffith's a u d i e n c e or e v e n r e s e m b l e d Griffith's film in
any way. 31

B y the fall of 1918, Griffith's l a w y e r s a n d b u s i n e s s m a n a g e r s con-

c l u d e d that t h e y n e e d e d to hire a lawyer in W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., w h o
m i g h t h a v e s o m e expertise in the a r c a n a of c o p y r i g h t law, w h i c h
s e e m e d to b e c h a n g i n g a l m o s t daily. T h e y retained the services of Wash-
ington lawyer Fulton B r y l a w s k i . W i t h B r y l a w s k i h a n d l i n g all the regis-
tration a n d deposit duties that the copyright office required, the Griffith
team c o n t i n u e d its practice of s e n d i n g treatments to b e registered and
d e p o s i t e d , often m o n t h s before the respective films w e r e r e a d y for reg-
istration a n d release. B r y l a w s k i a p p a r e n t l y raised n o questions a b o u t
the utility of trying to protect stories b y registering treatments. H e sim-
p l y f o l l o w e d orders. For e a c h film in p r o d u c t i o n , the studio w o u l d send
Brylawski a synopsis of the story, a n d then t w o sets of reels for the film
six to eight w e e k s later. H e w o u l d dutifully register a n d deposit them
with the copyright office of the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , then s e n d the reg-
istration receipts b a c k to the Griffith s t u d i o . 32

Griffith also p i o n e e r e d — o r at least m a s t e r e d — t w o b u s i n e s s m e t h -

ods that m a d e the r a p i d g r o w t h of the A m e r i c a n film i n d u s t r y possi-
ble. T h e first exploited o n e of the m o s t significant c h a n g e s in A m e r -
ican c o p y r i g h t l a w from the 1909 revision: c o r p o r a t e c o p y r i g h t and
" w o r k s m a d e for h i r e . " T h e s e c o n d i n v o l v e d rights acquisitions for m u -
sical scores.
C o r p o r a t e copyright w a s an accidental Revolution. Before 1909,
o n l y individual a u t h o r s c o u l d claim c o p y r i g h t in a w o r k . A u t h o r s li-
c e n s e d their w o r k to publishers, but the flesh-and-blood a u t h o r w a s
the p r i m a r y agent a n d t h u s beneficiary of c o p y r i g h t law. But the 1909
 102 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

revision c o n t a i n e d a s m a l l section that m a d e it p o s s i b l e for a c o r p o r a -

tion s u c h as a n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n y to retain c o p y r i g h t s in its
n a m e for a limited period of time, e v e n if its e m p l o y e e s h a d p r o d u c e d
the actual w o r k . Therefore, the publisher h a d the s a m e rights in the
courts a n d the m a r k e t p l a c e as the author. T h e creation of corporate
copyright in 1909 w a s the real " d e a t h of the a u t h o r . " A u t h o r s h i p could
not b e c o n s i d e r e d mystical or r o m a n t i c after 1909. It w a s s i m p l y a con-
struct of c o n v e n i e n c e , malleable b y c o n t r a c t . 33

T h e provision w a s i n t e n d e d to aid the publishers of e n c y c l o p e d i a s

a n d periodicals, but its effects w e r e m u c h m o r e p o w e r f u l in other in-
dustries. In the case of film p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n i e s , c o r p o r a t e c o p y r i g h t
a l l o w e d studio control of content, distribution, advertising, a n d deriv-
ative p r o d u c t s . Directors, p r o d u c e r s , screenwriters, a n d e v e n a c t o r s —
all of w h o m c o u l d p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y claim " a u t h o r s h i p " of a f i l m — r e g u -
larly sign a w a y control of their w o r k to a studio, a n d c a n n o t claim the
benefits a n d privileges of legal authorship.
Griffith u s e d the n e w corporate copyright provisions creatively.
H e hired a s m a l l stable of writers, led b y a f o r m e r n e w s p a p e r reporter
n a m e d S. E . V. Taylor, w h o h a d w r i t t e n treatments for B i o g r a p h years
before. U n d e r the a g r e e m e n t Taylor s i g n e d w i t h Griffith in 1919, Grif-
fith p a i d Taylor a retainer of $100 p e r w e e k as a n a d v a n c e against the
p a y m e n t of $1,000 for e a c h original story h e p r o d u c e d . That m e a n t that
Taylor e a r n e d as m u c h in a w e e k f r o m Griffith as B i o g r a p h h a d paid for
the rights to Ramona in 1910, b a c k w h e n B i o g r a p h w a s p a y i n g Taylor
a n d others $25 per treatment. W h i l e w o r k i n g for Griffith, Taylor w r o t e
treatments s u c h as The Great Love (1918), The Greatest Thing in Life (1918),
Scarlet Days (1919), The Girl Who Stayed at Home (1919), a n d The Idol
Dancer (1920). In addition to his per-treatment c o m m i s s i o n , Taylor re-
ceived b e t w e e n 3 a n d 5 percent of all profits a b o v e p r o d u c t i o n a n d dis-
tribution e x p e n s e s . In e x c h a n g e for this relatively h i g h salary for a
writer, Taylor relinquished his personal stake in the legal a u t h o r s h i p of
the stories a n d a g r e e d that h e w o u l d w o r k exclusively for Griffith. In
this way, Griffith e n j o y e d a consistent stream of filmable stories f r o m a
veteran writer, a n d h e w a s able to control e v e r y e l e m e n t of the c o p y -
right b u n d l e . 34

E v e n w i t h T a y l o r ' s p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d Griffith's o w n prolific writing,

Griffith often w e n t o u t - o f - h o u s e for stories. B e t w e e n 1915 a n d 1919,
Griffith p r o d u c e d film versions of Paul A r m s t r o n g ' s p l a y The Escape
(1914), D a n i e l C a r s o n G o o d m a n ' s n o v e l The Battle of the Sexes (1914),
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 103

D i x o n ' s The Clansman (1915), a n d T h o m a s B u r k e ' s story " T h e C h i n k

a n d the C h i l d , " w h i c h b e c a m e Broken Blossoms (1919). A 1919 rights
transfer contract b e t w e e n writer E d w a r d R o b e r t s a n d Griffith s h o w s
the terms u n d e r w h i c h studios acquired s u c h w o r k s . Griffith gave
Roberts $500 for the " w o r l d ' s m o t i o n picture r i g h t s " to R o b e r t s ' s story
" T h o u Art the M a n . " In addition, Griffith received the p o w e r to c h a n g e
a n y t h i n g in the s t o r y a n d a p l e d g e that Roberts w o u l d n o t publicize the
deal. Roberts also received a p r o m i s e that h e w o u l d b e g i v e n credit in
the film for his a u t h o r s h i p of the story. D e s p i t e the successful transfer of
rights, Griffith n e v e r m a d e the film. U n d e r the n e w practice of c o r p o -
rate c o p y r i g h t , Griffith c o u l d acquire the rights to a story for a fairly
cheap price a n d e n s u r e that his c o m p a n y controlled the content, distri-
b u t i o n , a n d p e r f o r m a n c e rights to the m o r e lucrative film version. Grif-
fith w a s w e l l o n his w a y from b e i n g c o p y r i g h t - p o o r to c o p y r i g h t - r i c h . 35

P r o d u c i n g a m o t i o n picture involves a l m o s t all e l e m e n t s of that

" b u n d l e " of rights w e call copyright. T h e C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1909 and
earlier practices established b y the Ben-Hur case, B i o g r a p h ' s a r r a n g e -
m e n t w i t h Little, B r o w n , a n d Griffith's deal w i t h D i x o n a l l o w e d authors
to sign a w a y rights in o n e m e d i u m w h i l e retaining t h e m in all others (or
the o n l y others at the t i m e , b o o k a n d serial rights). But silent films
n e e d e d m u s i c , too, a n d sheet m u s i c c o m p o s i t i o n s w e r e also protected
b y c o p y r i g h t law. Before 1909, silent films s h o w n in theaters w e r e ac-
c o m p a n i e d b y m u s i c i a n s w h o w o u l d i m p r o v i s e along w i t h the action
on the screen. Predictably, the v a l u e of the film-watching experience
v a r i e d w i d e l y w i t h the improvisational skills of the b a n d s . W h i l e Grif-
fith w a s at B i o g r a p h , struggling to control e v e r y aspect of filmmaking,
he e m p l o y e d a p o p u l a r c o m p o s e r n a m e d J o s e p h Carl Breil, w h o h a d
written the hit " T h e S o n g of the S o u l . " Breil c o m p o s e d " c u e s h e e t s " for
m a n y of Griffith's B i o g r a p h releases. T h e c u e sheets w e r e not quite
c o m p o s i t i o n s . T h e y w e r e m o r e like r o a d m a p s or outlines that m o d e s t l y
t e m p e r e d a n d s t a n d a r d i z e d the i m p r o v i s e d m u s i c in theaters. T h e cue
sheets listed the major scenes of the film so that the m u s i c i a n s w o u l d
not b e surprised b y plot twists a n d m o o d c h a n g e s . T h e y also s u g g e s t e d
s o m e p o p u l a r m u s i c that m i g h t a c c o m p a n y the scenes. T h e r e is n o rea-
son to b e l i e v e that Griffith a r r a n g e d for a n y rights transfers for those
s u g g e s t e d s o n g s , nor is it likely that theater o w n e r s p a i d royalties to
the c o m p o s e r s of p o p u l a r ballads the orchestras m i g h t p l a y b e c a u s e
the n o t i o n of " p e r f o r m a n c e r i g h t s " did n o t exist until 1913. But b y
1919, Griffith w a s contracting w i t h s o m e i n d e p e n d e n t c o m p o s e r s . O n e
 104 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

a g r e e m e n t that a c q u i r e d " C h i n e s e t h e m e s " for the film Broken Blossoms

required the c o m p o s e r , L e e J o h n s o n , to relinquish o n l y the theater p e r -
f o r m a n c e rights to Griffith, w h i l e retaining the right to p u b l i s h sheet
m u s i c a n d m a k e recordings o r p i a n o rolls for general sale. M o s t of all,
J o h n s o n received v a l u a b l e publicity for his " C h i n e s e t h e m e s . " 3 6

W h i l e Griffith w o u l d occasionally contract out for m u s i c , the major

scoring for his films h a d to b e d o n e i n - h o u s e to e n s u r e c o n t i n u i t y a n d
consistency. B y the t i m e Griffith m a d e Home Sweet Home in 1914, Breil
w a s c o m p o s i n g — a s " w o r k s m a d e for h i r e " — c o m p l e t e film scores for
small orchestras. T h e greatest c h a l l e n g e for Breil's c o m p o s i t i o n skills
w a s the 1915 epic The Birth of a Nation. T h e score for the twelve-reel film
h a d 214 cues a n d 1,500 s c e n e s . T h e score required a forty-piece orches-
tra w i t h vocalists. Griffith b i o g r a p h e r R i c h a r d Schickel cited w o r k s b y
Schubert, D v o r a k , S c h u m a n n , M o z a r t , Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner,
a n d S t e p h e n Foster in the score. Breil also e m p l o y e d p u b l i c d o m a i n
songs s u c h as " T u r k e y in the S t r a w " a n d " H o m e S w e e t H o m e . " S o m e
of the material in the Birth of a Nation score w a s original to Breil, Schickel
explained, including t o m - t o m s i n the film's o p e n i n g s c e n e of slaves ar-
riving in A m e r i c a a n d the piercing " r e b e l y e l l s " that stirred a u d i e n c e s
n a t i o n w i d e . T h e score is a p p r o p r i a t e l y credited to b o t h Breil a n d Grif-
fith, for Griffith a p p r o v e d e v e r y m e a s u r e a n d insisted o n certain ex-
pressive elements o v e r Breil's opposition. Griffith g r e w so skilled at the
intricacies of film scoring from his w o r k w i t h Breil that h e later c o m -
p o s e d the t h e m e for Broken Blossoms (1919), a s o n g called " W h i t e Blos-
s o m s . " Breil d i d m a n a g e to generate o n e hit s o n g for h i m s e l f from the
score. It w a s p u b l i s h e d as " T h e Perfect S o n g , " a n d w e n t on to s e r v e as
the t h e m e for the radio p r o g r a m Amos 'n Andy? 7

The Birth of a Nation also served as the site of a brilliant b u s i n e s s

m o v e Griffith m a d e using the n e w c o r p o r a t e copyright. Griffith h a d
raised the m o n e y to m a k e The Birth of a Nation through a company
called Majestic Pictures. T h e major investors in the film, t h r o u g h their
i n s t r u m e n t Majestic, e x p e c t e d to h a v e s o m e l e v e r a g e in directing the
publicity a n d distribution for the film. But w h e n the reels of d e v e l o p e d
film w e r e finally in their cans, r e a d y for registration a n d deposit in the
L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , Griffith e n s u r e d that the film w a s c o p y r i g h t e d in
the n a m e of the D . W. Griffith C o r p o r a t i o n . Griffith a n d D i x o n also
f o r m e d a c o m p a n y called E p o c h P r o d u c t i o n s a n d a r r a n g e d to h a v e the
D . W. Griffith C o r p o r a t i o n lease the rights of the film to E p o c h , w h i c h
w o u l d distribute it. T h e r e f o r e , Griffith retained c o m p l e t e control over
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 105

not o n l y the i m a g e s a n d m u s i c of the film, but its i m p a c t o n the m o t i o n

picture m a r k e t as w e l l . 38

Just after The Birth of a Nation m a d e its s p l a s h , a n d the D . W. Grif-

fith C o r p o r a t i o n m a d e its legal p r e s e n c e k n o w n , Griffith b e g a n w o r k
on h i s n e x t p i c t u r e , Intolerance ( 1 9 1 7 ) . T h i s t i m e , Griffith registered
the c o p y r i g h t in his o w n n a m e , n o t a c o r p o r a t e n a m e . T h e n h e as-
s i g n e d d i s t r i b u t i o n rights to a n e w c o r p o r a t i o n called W a r k P r o d u c -
ing C o r p o r a t i o n . This w a s his n o r m a l r e g i s t r a t i o n p r a c t i c e for m a n y
y e a r s after. Griffith's r e a s o n s for this n e w p r a c t i c e a r e unclear. Per-
h a p s h e liked t h e i d e a of h a v i n g a title of p e r s o n a l a u t h o r s h i p at-
t a c h e d to his f i l m s . P e r h a p s h i s l a w y e r s a d v i s e d h i m that this m e t h o d
w o u l d a l l o w a d i s t r i b u t i o n c o m p a n y to g o b r o k e a n d fold, y e t let the
rights revert to Griffith personally, h i just t e n y e a r s — f r o m The Death
Disc in 1909 to Broken Blossoms in 1 9 1 9 — G r i f f i t h h a d m o v e d f r o m
b e i n g s o m e o n e i n t e r e s t e d in m a i n t a i n i n g o n l y m i n i m a l p r o t e c t i o n of
o t h e r s ' w o r k s to s o m e o n e w h o h a d a v e s t e d interest in e n c o u r a g i n g
m a x i m u m c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n f o r his o w n w o r k . H e h a d m o v e d
from b e i n g c o p y r i g h t - p o o r to c o p y r i g h t - r i c h . 39

LEARNED H A N D A N D THE " W E B " OF EXPRESSION

N o jurist or legal scholar has h a d a greater effect o n the b u s i n e s s and

content of A m e r i c a n culture t h a n J u d g e L e a r n e d H a n d . For m o s t of his
career, H a n d s e r v e d o n the U.S. S e c o n d Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s in
N e w York City. A student of William J a m e s a n d G e o r g e S a n t a y a n a at
H a r v a r d , H a n d w a s passionate a b o u t matters of f r e e d o m , creativity,
a n d intellectual progress. T h r o u g h c o p y r i g h t a n d s p e e c h cases that con-
fronted h i m o n the court, H a n d exhibited a rare c o m b i n a t i o n of m a s t e r y
a n d modesty. W h e n C o n g r e s s started w r i t i n g the revisions that w o u l d
b e c o m e the C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1976, it codified m a n y of the principles
that H a n d h a d articulated in his o p i n i o n s from the b e n c h . H a n d w a s a
biting critic, a n d h e e x p r e s s e d disdain for s o m e of the w o r k s that c a m e
before h i m , especially trite songs a n d p l a y s . Still, h e kept his aesthetic
opinions from i m p i n g i n g on his j u d g m e n t s a b o u t a u t h o r s h i p a n d orig-
inality. A s H a n d w r o t e i n his earliest copyright o p i n i o n (echoing o n e
of his legal h e r o e s , Justice H o l m e s ) : " W h i l e the p u b l i c taste c o n t i n u e s
to give p e c u n i a r y v a l u e to a c o m p o s i t i o n of n o artistic excellence, the
court m u s t c o n t i n u e to r e c o g n i z e the v a l u e s o created. C e r t a i n l y the
 106 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

qualifications of j u d g e s w o u l d h a v e to b e v e r y different f r o m w h a t they

are if t h e y w e r e to b e constituted censors of the a r t s . " H a n d w a s a great
fan of m u s i c a l theater, yet s o m e of A m e r i c a ' s b e s t a n d b e s t - k n o w n c o m -
p o s e r s lost c o p y r i g h t cases before h i m , i n c l u d i n g J e r o m e K e r n , Sig-
m u n d R o m b e r g , Irving Berlin, a n d C o l e Porter. H a n d t o o k v e r y seri-
o u s l y the incentive principle b e h i n d the c o p y r i g h t clause of the Consti-
tution, a n d just as seriously the limitations it prescribes. F o r H a n d ,
copyright w a s for the public, n o t for the p r o d u c e r s . M o s t of his c o p y -
right decisions e m a n a t e from a c o n c e r n to e n s u r e a rich a n d diverse
array of artistic e x p r e s s i o n s from w h i c h the p u b l i c m a y c h o o s e . 40

P e r h a p s H a n d ' s m o s t significant l e g a c y in c o p y r i g h t law w a s that

h e clarified a n d reinforced the i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n dichotomy, w h i c h w a s
in d a n g e r of e r o d i n g as j u d g e s frequently a n d w i t h o u t g u i d a n c e con-
sidered w h e t h e r m o t i o n pictures h a d infringed o n n o v e l s or p l a y s or
n e w s o n g s h a d taken too m u c h f r o m old songs. H a n d n o t o n l y re-
m i n d e d his colleagues of the free s p e e c h implications of the dichotomy.
H e outlined tests for i n f r i n g e m e n t that t h e y c o u l d use. In this way,
H a n d b r o u g h t s o m e c o n s i s t e n c y a n d predictability to c o p y r i g h t l a w
that h a d n o t existed since the rise of c o m m e r c i a l film a n d w o u l d n o t
survive the e x p a n s i o n of m e d i a in the last three d e c a d e s of the twenti-
eth c e n t u r y . 41

A s a j u d g e o n the appeals court responsible for cases from N e w

York City, the center of A m e r i c a n publishing, m u s i c c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d
theater, H a n d p l a y e d a part in m o s t of the m a j o r copyright decisions in
the 1920s a n d 1930s. His first declaration o n the i m p o r t a n c e of the
i d e a / e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y c a m e in 1930, in the case Nichols v. Univer-
sal Pictures Corp. A n n e N i c h o l s , p l a y w r i g h t of the l o n g - r u n n i n g B r o a d -
w a y play Abie's Irish Rose, c l a i m e d that Universal h a d relied o n her p l a y
w h e n it p r o d u c e d the film The Cohens and the Kellys (1927). B o t h the p l a y
a n d the film c o n c e r n e d " s t a r - c r o s s e d l o v e r s " f r o m f e u d i n g families, o n e
J e w i s h , o n e Irish. But as H a n d c o n c l u d e d w h e n h e a n a l y z e d the t w o
w o r k s , " t h e o n l y matter c o m m o n to the t w o is a quarrel b e t w e e n a J e w -
ish a n d Irish father, the m a r r i a g e of their children, the birth of g r a n d -
children a n d a reconciliation." H a n d w r o t e ,

If Twelfth Night were copyrighted, it is quite possible that a second

coiner might so closely imitate Sir Toby Belch or Malvolio as to in-
fringe, but it would not be enough that for one of these characters he
cast a riotous knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the house-
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 107

hold, or a vain and foppish steward who became amorous of his mis-
tress. These would be no more than Shakespeare's "ideas" in the play,
as little capable of monopoly as Einstein's doctrine of Relativity, or
Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species.

H a n d w a s c o n c e r n e d that if courts ruled too strictly on s u c h cases, " s e c -

o n d c o m e r s , " w h o m i g h t do a m u c h better j o b than the originator of an
idea, c o u l d b e f o r b i d d e n from or p u n i s h e d for i m p r o v i n g a plot. H a n d
c o n c l u d e d : " A c o m e d y b a s e d u p o n conflicts b e t w e e n Irish a n d J e w s ,
into w h i c h the m a r r i a g e of their children enters, is n o m o r e susceptible
of c o p y r i g h t t h a n the outline of R o m e o a n d J u l i e t . " H a n d w a s careful,
h o w e v e r , to state that d r a w i n g a thick a n d clear line b e t w e e n w h a t is an
idea in a narrative a n d w h a t is a n e x p r e s s i o n of that idea w o u l d n e v e r
b e easy, if possible at all. H a n d c o n c e d e d that the line b e t w e e n ideas and
expressions is instinctual, b u t said it s h o u l d rely o n i m p r e s s i o n s of the
total w o r k s in question. H a n d h o p e d that j u d g e s w o u l d u s e c o m m o n
sense o n a case-by-case basis yet a d h e r e to s o m e ill-defined general
principles. 42

H a n d delineated those general principles in his n e x t major i d e a / e x -

pression case, Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., in 1936. T h e case
c o n c e r n e d the J o a n C r a w f o r d v e h i c l e Letty Lynton (1932). T h e film tells
the story of a y o u n g w o m a n w h o h a s a n affair w i t h a y o u n g m a n , then
m e e t s a rich, older, single m a n a n d decides to m a r r y h i m instead. T h e
jilted y o u n g lover t h e n threatens to e x p o s e the aborted affair b y s h o w -
ing the n e w p r o s p e c t their love letters. Letty, the y o u n g w o m a n , con-
siders suicide b u t opts instead for m u r d e r , p o i s o n i n g her y o u n g lover.
T h e plaintiff's play, Dishonored Lady, s h a r e d the basic plot w i t h the
film. In addition, b o t h the p l a y a n d the film w e r e set in upper-class N e w
York society a n d i n v o l v e d a S o u t h A m e r i c a n lover as the extortionist
a n d m u r d e r victim. M e t r o - G o l d w y n officials h a d s e e n the play, starring
K a t h e r i n e Cornell, in 1930 a n d h a d c o n s i d e r e d b u y i n g the film rights to
it, b u t w e r e d i s s u a d e d b y censors. In 1 9 3 1 , M e t r o - G o l d w y n executive
Irving Thalberg ( w h o e n g i n e e r e d the c o m p l e x s c r i p t - b o r r o w i n g m a c h i -
nations for the M a r x Brothers) p u r c h a s e d the rights to a British n o v e l ,
Letty Lynton (1931), that h a d the exact s a m e plot as Dishonored Lady. To
c o m p l i c a t e issues further, b o t h the n o v e l a n d the p l a y d e r i v e d their sto-
ries f r o m a true incident, the 1857 m u r d e r trial of a G l a s g o w w o m a n
n a m e d M a d e l e i n e S m i t h . T h e studio, of course, a r g u e d that it justifi-
ably u s e d b o t h the plot, w h i c h w a s in the p u b l i c d o m a i n b y v i r t u e of its
 108 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

historical a n t e c e d e n t , a n d the details of the n o v e l , to w h i c h it controlled

the film rights.
U s i n g H a n d ' s o p i n i o n in the Nichols case, the federal district court
j u d g e ruled that the film did n o t infringe o n the play, despite similari-
ties in setting a n d character. J u d g e J o h n W o o l s e y h a d d o n e w h a t a n y
other trial court j u d g e w o u l d h a v e d o n e in the w a k e of the Nichols deci-
sion: h e e x a m i n e d the details of the t w o w o r k s in question, identified
w h a t h e called " c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r s , " a n d e l i m i n a t e d those that
qualified as u n p r o t e c t a b l e ideas a n d those that c a m e from the public
trial record in the M a d e l e i n e S m i t h case. But narratives are n o t a l w a y s
reducible to lists of " c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r s . " H a n d ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
h o w n o v e l s , p l a y s , a n d m o t i o n pictures actually w o r k for an a u d i e n c e
m o t i v a t e d h i m to reverse W o o l s e y ' s decision. It w a s n o t the similarities
of recipes, b u t the similarities of flavors of the final p r o d u c t s , that mat-
tered to H a n d . 4 3

Citing the suit J a c k L o n d o n lost against B i o g r a p h for the film b a s e d

on " J u s t M e a t , " H a n d w r o t e , " A t t i m e s , in discussing h o w m u c h s u b -
stance of a p l a y the c o p y r i g h t protects, courts h a v e i n d e e d u s e d lan-
g u a g e w h i c h s e e m s to give c o u n t e n a n c e to the n o t i o n that, if a plot w e r e
old, it c o u l d n o t b e c o p y r i g h t e d . " H a n d a g a i n declared that a plot in a n d
b y itself cannot b e protected b y copyright, b u t the " v a l u e a d d e d , " the
extra aspects a n d layers a n d twists that a n e w creator imparts to the
w o r k , can b e . Certainly, there w a s m o r e to this case t h a n a c o m m o n plot
a m o n g several similar w o r k s : " I n the case at b a r there are t h e n t w o
questions: First, w h e t h e r the d e f e n d a n t s actually u s e d the p l a y ; second,
if so, w h e t h e r theirs w a s a 'fair u s e . ' "
B e c a u s e the p l a y w a s b a s e d o n a true story, " t h e plaintiff's original-
ity is limited to the variants they i n t r o d u c e d . " S t e p p i n g a r o u n d the plot
similarities, w h i c h H a n d f o u n d to b e irrelevant, h e outlined the ele-
m e n t s of the film that c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h e l e m e n t s of the p l a y that h e
f o u n d to b e " o r i g i n a l " to the p l a y w r i g h t . First H a n d e x a m i n e d the set-
ting, then the characters.

The defendants took for their mise-en-scene the same city and the
same social class; and they chose a South American villain. The hero-
ines had indeed to be wanton, but Letty Lynton "tracked" Madeleine
Cary [the character from the play] more closely than that. She is over-
come by passion in the first part of the picture. . . . This is the same
weakness as in the murder scene of the play, though transposed.
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S 109

H a n d c o n t i n u e d to delineate four m o r e traits the characters s h a r e d , in-

cluding the trait that in b o t h the p l a y a n d the film, the p r o t a g o n i s t w a s
ultimately " r e d e e m e d b y a h i g h e r l o v e . " H a n d then distinguished them
from the historical M a d e l e i n e S m i t h a n d the fictional Letty f r o m the
novel, w h o w e r e t h r o u g h o u t their tales m a n i p u l a t i v e a n d greedy, n e v e r
"redeemed by a higher love."
E x a m i n i n g t h e e l e m e n t s of t h e s t o r y that d r o v e t h e p l o t , H a n d
c o n c l u d e d : " [ T ] h e threat s c e n e is c a r r i e d o u t w i t h a l m o s t e x a c t l y the
s a m e s e q u e n c e of e v e n t a n d a c t u a t i o n [in b o t h t h e p l a y a n d f i l m ] ; it
h a s n o p r o t o t y p e in e i t h e r [historical] s t o r y or n o v e l . . . . S u r e l y the se-
q u e n c e of t h e s e details is p r o t a n t o t h e v e r y w e b of t h e a u t h o r s ' dra-
m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n ; a n d c o p y i n g t h e m is n o t 'fair u s e . ' " H a n d delivered
four c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m his r e a d i n g of t h e e v i d e n c e : T h e prior e x i s t e n c e
of a p l o t in h i s t o r y or t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n d o e s n o t i n v a l i d a t e a c o p y -
right o n a later s i m i l a r w o r k ; fair use m a y p e r m i t t h e t a k i n g of a n old
plot o r i d e a f r o m a c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k , b u t n o t its e x p r e s s i o n in origi-
nal f o r m ; u n c o n s c i o u s a p p r o p r i a t i o n of original e l e m e n t s of e x p r e s -
s i o n is still i n f r i n g e m e n t ; a n d d i s s i m i l a r d i a l o g u e d o e s n o t i n v a l i d a t e
a c l a i m of i n f r i n g e m e n t .
But H a n d ' s central p o i n t w a s that w h e n j u d g i n g the extent of in-
f r i n g e m e n t b e t w e e n w o r k s that tell similar stories, o n e m u s t distill the
" v e r y w e b of the a u t h o r s ' dramatic e x p r e s s i o n . " This " w e b " h e defined
as " t h e s e q u e n c e of the confluents of all these m e a n s (plot, character,
m e a n s of revelation, setting, t h e m e s ) , b o u n d together in a n inseparable
unity; it m a y often b e m o s t effectively p i r a t e d b y leaving out the speech,
for w h i c h a substitute can b e f o u n d , w h i c h k e e p s the w h o l e dramatic
m e a n i n g . " U s i n g s u c h a test, searching for a " w e b " of expression that
can d e t e r m i n e the " w h o l e d r a m a t i c m e a n i n g , " H a n d w o u l d h a v e ruled
differently than the p r e s i d i n g j u d g e s did in the G e r m a n translation case
of Stowe v. Thomas a n d the derivative w o r k s case of London v. Biograph.
U n d e r the criteria set forth b y Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn, T w a i n could
h a v e successfully s u e d B i o g r a p h a n d Griffith for infringing o n " T h e
D e a t h D i s k , " despite the c h a n g e s Griffith m a d e a n d the p u b l i c d o m a i n
source of the story in the w o r k of C a r l y l e . 44

Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn c o u l d b e r e a d as a b l a t a n t rejection of

H a n d ' s o w n a r g u m e n t — m a d e in Nichols v. Universal—for a thick w a l l
b e t w e e n idea a n d expression. H a n d s e e m e d to b e retreating or con-
tradicting himself, collapsing the distinction. In fact, it is just the o p p o -
site. W h a t H a n d a c c o m p l i s h e d in his o p i n i o n — r e a d i n g each of the four
 I 10 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

relevant plots a n d a n a l y z i n g the similarities a n d d i f f e r e n c e s — w a s to

s h o w that w h i l e particular ideas cannot b e protected, a pattern of ideas
c a n b e , b e c a u s e a p a t t e r n is a n expression. It's the analysis of patterns,
H a n d a r g u e d , that is the k e y to a l l o w i n g ideas to flow freely a n d ex-
pressions to b e protected. In its m o s t basic f o r m , H a n d ' s a r g u m e n t
states that the e l e m e n t s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n are (and s h o u l d be) c o m m o n ,
b u t the order a n d a r r a n g e m e n t are w h e r e the w o r k lies, w h e r e the cre-
ativity s h o w s , a n d w h e r e the i n f r i n g e m e n t c a n occur. It's as if H a n d
took each unit of m e a n i n g in the stories—plot devices, setting, tension,
c h a r a c t e r s — a n d v i e w e d t h e m as letters of a n a r r a t i v e a l p h a b e t . B e c a u s e
an alphabet is c o m m o n property, the l a w c a n protect o n l y a specific
string of letters in a particular order that p e r f o r m a particular f u n c -
t i o n — t h e " w e b of the a u t h o r s ' d r a m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n . " 45

T h e play, the n o v e l a n d the m o t i o n picture that H a n d c o n s i d e r e d in

the Sheldon case all rested on a true story that w a s w e l l - k n o w n in both
Britain a n d N o r t h A m e r i c a . B e c a u s e of this, the case h a s s e r v e d as a sig-
nificant p r e c e d e n t for the resolution of o t h e r cases in w h i c h films h a v e
b e e n b a s e d o n nonfiction, yet subject to litigation n o n e t h e l e s s . T h e first
of these cases arose in 1943 a n d c o n c e r n e d a 1936 b o o k called We Who
Are Young, an e c o n o m i c treatise that d i s c u s s e d p r o b l e m s in the U n i t e d
States against the b a c k d r o p of the F r a n k l i n R o o s e v e l t - A l f L a n d o n p r e s -
idential c a m p a i g n . T h e b o o k sold a b o u t s e v e n h u n d r e d c o p i e s , m o s t l y
in its first year. F o u r years later, writer D a l t o n T r u m b o , w h o h a d n e v e r
h e a r d of the b o o k We Who Are Young, sold a s c r e e n p l a y to L o e w ' s m o -
tion picture studio a b o u t the h a r d s h i p s y o u n g m a r r i e d c o u p l e s face on
a s m a l l salary. T r u m b o called the s c r e e n p l a y To Own the World. T h e stu-
dio later c h a n g e d the title to We Who Are Young. H a r r y Becker, the a u -
thor of the nonfiction b o o k , s u e d L o e w ' s , trying to protect b o t h his title
a n d his " o r i g i n a l t h o u g h t s a n d i d e a s , " " c e n t r a l t h e m e s , " a n d " m a t e r i a l
p o r t i o n s , " e v e n t h o u g h there w a s n o e v i d e n c e that T r u m b o u s e d his
b o o k in a n y way. T h e v e r y i d e a of a n e c o n o m i c treatise contributing
a n y t h i n g protectable to a n a r r a t i v e film o f f e n d e d the j u d g e in the case,
w h o cited b o t h the Nichols a n d the Sheldon decisions w h i l e ruling for the
studio. B e c k e r tried to protect his b o o k ' s title not t h r o u g h c o p y r i g h t law,
w h i c h clearly avoids protecting titles, but t h r o u g h a n a p p e a l to unfair
competition law. H e a r g u e d that the film title w o u l d c a u s e c o n f u s i o n in
the m a r k e t p l a c e . T h e j u d g e stated that c o m p e t i t i o n w o u l d b e unfair
only if the studio w e r e d o i n g b u s i n e s s in a w a y that w o u l d deceive the
public. B e c k e r lost o n b o t h a t t e m p t s . A l t h o u g h m o s t cases involving the
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S III

influence of nonfiction w o r k s on fictional w o r k s are m o r e t r o u b l e s o m e

a n d c o m p l e x than the case of We Who Are Young, courts h a v e consis-
tently g r a n t e d s e c o n d takers b r o a d f r e e d o m s to use historical a n d n o n -
fiction w o r k s . 4 6

O n e recent e x a m p l e of this c o n c e r n e d the 1997 film Amistad. The

parallels b e t w e e n the Amistad case a n d the Letty Lynton case, Sheldon v.
Metro-Goldwyn, are striking. Like Letty Lynton, Amistad is a d r a m a t i z e d
retelling of a historical event. A l s o , as in the 1934 case, a n o t h e r writer
claimed to h a v e suffered i n f r i n g e m e n t from a major m o t i o n picture stu-
dio a n d cited specific aspects of h e r w o r k that a p p e a r e d in the film, yet
w e r e n o t part of the historical record. Also like Letty Lynton, the film
studio h a d p u r c h a s e d the rights to another v e r s i o n of the story before
p r o c e e d i n g w i t h p r o d u c t i o n . U n l i k e Sheldon, the Amistad case n e v e r
m a d e it to trial, so a j u d g e c o u l d n o t e m p l o y the c o m p l e x narrative
analysis that H a n d p r e s c r i b e d . Amistad is b a s e d o n a n incident that oc-
curred in 1839. A ship b y that n a m e carrying c a p t u r e d W e s t Africans
w a s h e a d e d t o w a r d C u b a . T h e Africans w e r e to b e sold as slaves. But
t h e y rebelled, killed s o m e of their captors, a n d took over the ship. T h e
surviving c r e w tricked the Africans b y sailing n o r t h e a s t instead of due
east. U.S. officials c a p t u r e d the ship off the coast of L o n g Island, a n d the
Africans faced m u r d e r charges a n d possible deportation to C u b a . For-
m e r President J o h n Q u i n c y A d a m s a r g u e d their case before the U.S.
S u p r e m e Court, a n d the A f r i c a n s w e r e e v e n t u a l l y freed a n d r e t u r n e d to
West Africa in 1841. At least e l e v e n b o o k s r e c o u n t t h e s e e p i s o d e s w i t h
varying degrees of n a r r a t i v e license. But t w o of these b o o k s — W i l l i a m
O. O w e n s ' s nonfiction account, Black Mutiny (1953), a n d B a r b a r a C h a s e -
R i b o u d ' s n o v e l Echo of Lions ( 1 9 8 9 ) — m a t t e r e d in the Amistad case. After
her friend a n d editor, J a c q u e l i n e K e n n e d y O n a s s i s , sent the Echo of Lions
m a n u s c r i p t in 1988 to S t e p h e n S p i e l b e r g ' s p r o d u c t i o n company, A m -
blin E n t e r t a i n m e n t , C h a s e - R i b o u d flew to L o s A n g e l e s to m e e t e x e c u -
tives of the company. A m b l i n later sent C h a s e - R i b o u d a letter declining
to p u r s u e the project. H o w e v e r , in 1997, S p i e l b e r g ' s n e w p r o d u c t i o n
company, D r e a m W o r k s S K G , a n n o u n c e d the i m m i n e n t release of Amis-
tad. D r e a m W o r k s c l a i m e d it b a s e d the film o n the w e l l - k n o w n historical
record of the case a n d p u r c h a s e d the rights to Black Mutiny.
C h a s e - R i b o u d filed suit for c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t a n d a s k e d for a
p r e l i m i n a r y injunction against the release of the film until the suit c a m e
to trial or r e a c h e d a settlement. C h a s e - R i b o u d a r g u e d that the film u s e d
several narrative devices a n d o n e fictional character that exist in her
 I 12 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

n o v e l a n d the film b u t are a b s e n t f r o m a n y o t h e r a c c o u n t s , fictional or

historical. After a federal j u d g e d e n i e d C h a s e - R i b o u d ' s m o t i o n for an
injunction the w e e k the film w a s to premiere, the a u t h o r a n d the studio
settled their suit out of court in early 1998. H a d the suit g o n e to trial a n d
t h r o u g h the appeals p r o c e s s , it m i g h t h a v e s h o w n h o w effectively
H a n d ' s m e t h o d of m e a s u r i n g i n f r i n g e m e n t applies to the c o m m e r c i a l
climate of the 1990s. Instead, writers a n d p r o d u c e r s r e m a i n w a r y of
each other, u n s u r e of the extent to w h i c h l a w s protect either of their in-
terests, let a l o n e the p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t . 47

THE IDEA OF IDEA PROTECTION

W h i l e J u d g e L e a r n e d H a n d ' s c o m p l e x a n d sophisticated r e a s o n i n g in
the Sheldon case served the dual p u r p o s e s of allowing a w i d e b e r t h of
f r e e d o m for " s e c o n d t a k e r s " to exploit, revise, or c o m m e n t on previ-
o u s l y e x p r e s s e d ideas w h i l e c o n f o u n d i n g those w h o w o u l d resort to
simple t w e a k s a n d trickery to e v a d e p a y i n g for rights a n d p e r m i s s i o n s ,
it did not solve all derivative w o r k s p r o b l e m s . In fact, in the h a n d s of
less careful or talented jurists, the n o t i o n of protecting a w o r k ' s " w e b "
of e x p r e s s i o n s often resulted in rulings that b l e w h u g e holes in the w a l l
b e t w e e n idea a n d expression a n d h e l p e d carve out a n e w area of law:
idea protection.
B y the 1970s, A m e r i c a n film a n d television p r o d u c t s w e r e transmit-
ted a r o u n d the w o r l d , a n d the c o m m e r c i a l stakes in each w o r k w e r e
h i g h e r t h a n ever. Substantial i n v e s t m e n t s d e m a n d e d exorbitant re-
turns, a n d as m u c h predictability as possible. C r e a t i n g a n d enforcing a
m o n o p o l y over a n i d e a b e c a m e a s h r e w d , if n o t essential, b u s i n e s s
m o v e . A s the m o s t profitable a n d controversial e l e m e n t s of A m e r i c a n
expressive culture e m e r g e d from California, the m a j o r decisions in
copyright a n d idea protection l a w s o o n c e a s e d to c o m e f r o m the c h a m -
bers of the S e c o n d Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s in N e w York C i t y a n d in-
stead c a m e f r o m the N i n t h Circuit in S a n Francisco.
In 1977, the N i n t h Circuit c o n s i d e r e d a case that pitted a children's
television p r o d u c t i o n company, Sid a n d M a r t y Krofft, against the fast
food c o m p a n y M c D o n a l d ' s . T h e Kroffts specialized in creating live ac-
tion s h o w s for children w i t h m i n i m a l c a r t o o n a n i m a t i o n . T h e i r s h o w s
generally h a d a preteen or early-teen b o y as protagonist, w h o f o u n d
himself in strange p r e d i c a m e n t s w i t h stranger creatures in i m a g i n a r y
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S I 13

settings. O n e of their m o s t successful series of the early 1970s w a s H. R.

Pufnstuf. In this series, a C o c k n e y b o y n a m e d J i m m y h a d a m a g i c flute
that talked to h i m (in a h i g h , w h i n y t o n e , of c o u r s e ) . T h e flute generally
resided in J i m m y ' s breast pocket, as it h a d n o a p p e n d a g e s a n d c o u l d do
little else. J i m m y w a s t r a p p e d in a place called Living Island. Also on
the island w e r e v a r i o u s large creatures of i n d e t e r m i n a t e g e n u s . O n e of
the friendliest of these creatures w a s the f o a m - s u i t e d d r a g o n o i d H . R.
Pufnstuf. All of the b o o k s a n d m o s t of the trees o n the island h a d faces
a n d c o u l d talk, a n d the trees c o u l d grab u n s u s p e c t i n g little b o y s with
their scraggly b r a n c h e s . T h e s h o w w a s like The Wizard of Oz w i t h o u t
the h a p p y ending. H. R. Pufnstuf went o n for m a n y seasons, a n d poor
J i m m y n e v e r s e e m e d to get off the island.
Sensing that s u c h a s c e n a r i o c o u l d d r a w i n n o c e n t children into beg-
ging their p a r e n t s to t a k e t h e m to s u c h a place, a n advertising a g e n c y
for M c D o n a l d ' s a p p r o a c h e d the Kroffts in 1970 a b o u t b a s i n g a n ad c a m -
p a i g n o n the series. T h e y n e v e r r e a c h e d a n a g r e e m e n t . U n d e t e r r e d , and
fairly confident that i d e a s c o u l d n o t b e p r o t e c t e d , the a g e n c y a n d M c -
D o n a l d ' s p r o c e e d e d to p r o d u c e a series of c o m m e r c i a l s , starting in
1971, that w e r e set in M c D o n a l d l a n d .
W h e n the case c a m e to trial, M c D o n a l d ' s officials a d m i t t e d they
h a d b o r r o w e d the idea of using a fantasy land w i t h strange characters
a n d talking trees a n d objects, b u t t h e y h a d clearly differentiated the ex-
pressions. T h e N i n t h Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s , ignoring J u d g e H a n d ' s
carefully structured a r g u m e n t s a n d c o n c e r n for erring o n the side of full
a n d rich p u b l i c s p e e c h , set out to list w h a t they c o n s i d e r e d substantially
similar expressions. T h e court d e t e r m i n e d that b o t h Living Island and
M c D o n a l d l a n d , despite b e i n g v e r y different g e o g r a p h i c a l entities (one
is a n island, the other just a land) o p e r a t i n g in different w a y s o n Satur-
d a y m o r n i n g televisions, w e r e b o t h " i m a g i n a r y w o r l d s i n h a b i t e d b y an-
t h r o p o m o r p h i c plants a n d a n i m a l s a n d other fanciful creatures. T h e
d o m i n a n t t o p o g r a p h i c a l features of the locales are the s a m e : trees,
caves, a p o n d , a r o a d a n d a castle. Both w o r k s feature a forest w i t h talk-
ing trees that h a v e h u m a n faces a n d characteristics." T h e j u d g e contin-
u e d b y a n a l y z i n g the characters, b a s e d on v e r y general p h r e n o l o g i c a l
criteria. " B o t h l a n d s are g o v e r n e d b y m a y o r s w h o h a v e disproportion-
ately large r o u n d h e a d s d o m i n a t e d b y long w i d e m o u t h s . T h e y are as-
sisted b y ' K e y s t o n e c o p ' characters. B o t h lands feature strikingly simi-
lar c r a z y scientists a n d a m u l t i - a r m e d evil c r e a t u r e . " T h e facts that the
s h o w lasted thirty m i n u t e s a n d the c o m m e r c i a l s o n l y thirty s e c o n d s ,
 I 14 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

a n d that the s h o w h a d a narrative drive a n d line a n d the c o m m e r c i a l s

only a m u s i n g snippets of action a n d dialogue, did n o t p l a y into the
court's decision. T h e court did not w e a v e a " w e b , " as H a n d h a d urged.
It s i m p l y m a d e a list of abstract traits. H a n d h a d clearly stated in Nichols
v. Universal Pictures Corp. that precisely defined characters are p r o -
tectable if the infringer b o r r o w s those precise definitions, b u t v a g u e l y
d r a w n characters c o u l d a n d s h o u l d n o t b e . T h e N i n t h Circuit, in the
Krofft case, did n o t take H a n d ' s a d v i c e a n d ruled against M c D o n a l d ' s . 48

But the c o u r t did m o r e than rule in a single case against a h a n d f u l

of c o m m e r c i a l s . It e x t e n d e d to the realm of visual a n d narrative enter-
t a i n m e n t a n e w principle of idea protection: "total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l . "
S e v e n y e a r s b e f o r e it c o n s i d e r e d the Krofft case, the N i n t h Circuit h a d
r e v i e w e d a c o p y r i g h t case c o n c e r n i n g t w o greeting card c o m p a n i e s .
T h e plaintiff h a d p r i n t e d d e c o r a t e d cards w i t h c o p y r i g h t e d art a n d s i m -
ple, c o m m o n p h r a s e s s u c h as " I w u v y o u " a n d " I m i s s you already . . .
a n d y o u h a v e n ' t e v e n left y e t . " T h e d e f e n d a n t m a d e similar cards, b u t
w i t h different art. T h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d that the w o r d s o n b o t h cards
w e r e too c o m m o n a n d v a g u e to b e c o n s i d e r e d " o r i g i n a l " u n d e r the law,
a n d that t h e y h a d n o t infringed on the c o p y r i g h t e d a r t w o r k b e c a u s e
they u s e d different art. T h e N i n t h Circuit a c c e p t e d b o t h of those p r o p -
ositions f r o m the defense b u t t h e n t r u m p e d t h e m b y ruling that the
n e w cards did infringe o n the old o n e s b y sharing their " t o t a l c o n c e p t
a n d f e e l . " T h e criteria for the court in this case h a d n o t h i n g to do with
the specific expressions o n the cards b u t d e p e n d e d o n the " m o o d they
portrayed." 49

B y introducing m o o d i n e s s into the l a w t h r o u g h these t w o cases, the

N i n t h Circuit effectively e r o d e d the a l r e a d y fragile wall b e t w e e n ideas
a n d expressions. T h e television s h o w s The Addams Family a n d The Mun-
sters p o r t r a y the s a m e m o o d s a n d share s o m e other facile traits, b u t they
are n o t the s a m e show. A m e r i c a n culture w o u l d b e p o o r e r if o n e h a d
p r e v e n t e d the other f r o m reaching p e o p l e ' s h o m e s b e c a u s e t h e y shared
a "total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l . " S o m e courts, i n c l u d i n g the N i n t h Circuit,
w o u l d h e a r similar cases in the t w e n t y years f o l l o w i n g Krofft v. McDon-
ald's, b u t w o u l d c h o o s e n o t to e m p l o y the "total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l " n o -
tion. B u t the d a m a g e w a s d o n e . A c o n c e p t as v a g u e a n d subjective
as " t o t a l c o n c e p t a n d f e e l " w a s b o u n d to c a u s e c o n f u s i o n a m o n g writ-
ers a n d artists, if n o t l a w y e r s . F e a r of infringing c a n b e as effective a cen-
sor as a n injunction. A t the d a w n of the t w e n t i e t h century, film c o p y -
right w a s u n p r e d i c t a b l e b e c a u s e the i n d u s t r y w a s e x p e r i m e n t a l , its fi-
 CELLULOID C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S I 15

nancial returns uncertain, a n d its practices u n t e s t e d . With H a n d ' s deci-

sions in the 1930s, i n d u s t r y habits stabilized. Clearly, h o w e v e r , after
1970 film copyright l a w b e c a m e m o r e u n p r e d i c t a b l e as ideas g r e w m o r e
protectable. 50

T h e unpredictability of m o t i o n picture c o p y r i g h t a n d the possibil-

ity of w i n n i n g a n idea protection suit h a v e increased in the 1990s, since
A r t B u c h w a l d ' s v i c t o r y in his suit over the idea h e s u b m i t t e d for an
E d d i e M u r p h y film that ultimately b e c a m e Coming to America (1989).
T h e B u c h w a l d case received substantial m e d i a c o v e r a g e , b u t w a s al-
m o s t a l w a y s referred to as a " p l a g i a r i s m s u i t . " Besides the fact that
" p l a g i a r i s m " is n o t a legal c a u s e of action, m o s t press a c c o u n t s ignored
the fact that B u c h w a l d ' s a t t o r n e y s k n e w that a copyright i n f r i n g e m e n t
suit w o u l d b e h a r d to w i n o n i d e a p r o t e c t i o n g r o u n d s . So instead, they
s u e d in a state court charging a violation of contract. T h e y w o n . T h e
plot, characters, t h e m e s , m o t i v a t i o n s , setting, a n d details of Coming to
America do n o t at all r e s e m b l e the t w o - p a g e treatment B u c h w a l d sub-
m i t t e d to P a r a m o u n t . F r o m 1996 t h r o u g h 1998, copyright infringement,
right of publicity, or i d e a p r o t e c t i o n suits h a v e b e e n filed against the
c o m p a n i e s that p r o d u c e d the films Amistad, Seven, The Devil's Advocate,
The Full Monty, Booty Call, Rumble in the Bronx, a n d The Truman Show.
T h e a b s u r d i t y of litigation i n the film i n d u s t r y r e a c h e d its a p e x in 1995,
w h e n a visual design artist, noticing similarities b e t w e e n a chair u s e d
in o n e s c e n e of the t w o - h o u r science fiction d r a m a 12 Monkeys and one
he h a d d e s i g n e d , s u c c e e d e d in delaying the n a t i o n w i d e release of the
film b y getting a p r e l i m i n a r y injunction against it. W h i l e fear of law-
suits c a n substantially c h a n g e the n a t u r e of artistic expression, injunc-
tions against p u b l i c a t i o n or distributions are prior restraints on speech,
a n d s h o u l d b e prescribed rarely a n d carefully. In the 12 Monkeys case,
o n e chair designer h a d a say in w h e n — o r w h e t h e r — a u d i e n c e s c o u l d
see the film, despite the fact that the infringing chair w a s o n l y i n o n e
scene of a m o v i e that h a d little or n o t h i n g to do w i t h f u r n i t u r e . 51

A l t h o u g h the film i n d u s t r y h a s p u s h e d for thicker c o p y r i g h t pro-

tection to protect its d o m i n a n t place in the global cultural m a r k e t p l a c e ,
it s h o u l d b e clear that thin c o p y r i g h t protection, a rich public d o m a i n ,
a n d a strong legal distinction b e t w e e n i d e a a n d expression m a d e the
A m e r i c a n film industry p o w e r f u l a n d creative in the first place. B e n d -
ing all decisions o n the legality of derivations in favor of original a u -
thors violates the spirit of A m e r i c a n copyright. B e n d i n g the l a w t o w a r d
" s e c o n d t a k e r s " w o u l d as w e l l . S o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n the t w o e x t r e m e s
 I 16 C E L L U L O I D C O P Y R I G H T A N D DERIVATIVE W O R K S

there m u s t b e a f o r m u l a that w o u l d a c k n o w l e d g e that all creativity

relies o n previous w o r k , builds " o n the s h o u l d e r s of g i a n t s , " yet w o u l d
encourage—maximize—creative expression in multiple m e d i a and
f o r m s . But b e c a u s e t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y c o p y r i g h t l a w h a s b e e n a battle of
strong interested parties seeking to control a m a r k e t , not a c o n c e r t e d ef-
fort to m a x i m i z e creativity a n d c o n t e n t for the benefit of the public, w e
h a v e lost sight of s u c h a f o r m u l a along the way.
 4

Hep Cats and Copy Cats

American Music Challenges the CopyrightTradition

SHIRLEY DIXON W A S thirteen years old in 1976, w h e n s h e first

p l a y e d the L e d Z e p p e l i n s o n g " W h o l e Lotta L o v e " for h e r father. Shir-
ley h a d b o r r o w e d the 1969 a l b u m Led Zeppelin II from a friend b e c a u s e
the hit s o n g f r o m it h a d r e m i n d e d h e r of o n e of h e r f a t h e r ' s c o m p o s i -
t i o n s . H e r father w a s the l e g e n d a r y b l u e s composer, performer, pro-
1

ducer, a n d b a s s player Willie D i x o n . Young Shirley w a s w e l l v e r s e d in

the " p r o p e r t y t a l k " of copyright law. S h e h a d b e e n typing h e r f a t h e r ' s
lyrics a n d filling in c o p y r i g h t registration f o r m s since s h e w a s eight
years old. S h i r l e y a p p l i e d h e r k e e n ear a n d m i n d to the L e d Z e p p e l i n
song a n d c o n c l u d e d " W h o l e Lotta L o v e " r e m i n d e d her of h e r f a t h e r ' s
writing style. H e agreed that " W h o l e Lotta L o v e " s o u n d e d like his ob-
scure s o n g " Y o u N e e d L o v e , " w h i c h w a s r e c o r d e d b y M u d d y Waters
in 1 9 6 2 . 2

Willie D i x o n filed suit in 1985 against the British r o c k g r o u p . T h e y

settled their d i s p u t e in 1987. A l t h o u g h this case n e v e r m a d e it as far as
a court h e a r i n g , the tensions b e t w e e n a n older blues c o m p o s e r and
y o u n g e r hit m a k e r s illustrate m a n y of the contradictions a n d complica-
tions of A m e r i c a n m u s i c copyright.
M u s i c , m o r e t h a n a n y other v e h i c l e of culture, collapses the gap
that separates idea f r o m expression. Is the string of six notes that initi-
ates " H a p p y B i r t h d a y to Y o u " a n idea, a n expression, or b o t h ? If it is an
idea, there m u s t b e a n o t h e r w a y to express the s a m e idea. W o u l d play-
ing the s a m e notes at a different t e m p o constitute a n e w expression of
the s a m e idea? W o u l d p l a y i n g it in a different k e y b e a n exercise in
novel expression? Is there a n idea b e h i n d a particular a r r a n g e m e n t of
m u s i c a l notes? Is there a n i d e a b e h i n d a tone, texture, t i m b r e , o r " f e e l "
of a s o n g ? A r e these features of a s o n g ideas in t h e m s e l v e s ?
If c o p y r i g h t l a w is c h a r g e d w i t h protecting a particular a r r a n g e -
m e n t of n o t e s , s h o u l d it protect the melody, the h a r m o n y , the r h y t h m ,

117
 118 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

or all of the a b o v e ? H o w long m u s t that string of n o t e s b e to constitute

a protectable s e g m e n t of expression? S h o u l d m u s i c c o p y r i g h t l a w b e
m o s t c o n c e r n e d w i t h the "total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l " of a protected w o r k ,
or particular e l e m e n t s s u c h as solos, riffs, or choruses? T h e twelve-bar
I-IV-V c h o r d pattern runs through m o s t songs w i t h i n the blues tradition,
so that pattern is generally c o n s i d e r e d unprotectable. It is considered
" c o m m o n property," d r a w n from the " d e e p w e l l " of A m e r i c a n blues.
H o w e v e r , a n identifiable o n e - m e a s u r e guitar r i f f — s u c h as the o p e n i n g
to the Rolling Stones s o n g (and Microsoft W i n d o w s advertisement)
"Start M e U p " — c o u l d be protectable. At w h a t point b e t w e e n general
chord patterns a n d specific strings of notes does repetition constitute an
i n f r i n g e m e n t of a protectable expression? N o n e of the a n s w e r s to these
questions is clear. Creative i n f r i n g e m e n t cases h a v e b e e n interpreted on
an almost a d h o c basis. M a i n t a i n i n g a h e a l t h y m e a s u r e of f r e e d o m for
" s e c o n d t a k e r s " to build u p o n a n expressive tradition d e m a n d s other
strategies, b e c a u s e the traditional s a f e g u a r d of the idea-expression di-
c h o t o m y does not operate the s a m e w a y in m u s i c as in other fields.
B e c a u s e t h e s e q u e s t i o n s y i e l d u n s a t i s f y i n g a n s w e r s , m a n y dis-
p u t e s a m o n g artists get e x p r e s s e d in m o r a l or ethical t e r m s . L e d Z e p -
p e l i n , like m a n y r o c k g r o u p s , d i d n o t h a v e a n u n s u l l i e d r e p u t a t i o n
for g r a n t i n g credit to b l u e s artists. T h e g r o u p h a d c o v e r e d a n d p r o p -
erly c r e d i t e d t w o o t h e r D i x o n c o m p o s i t i o n s , " Y o u S h o o k M e " a n d " I
C a n ' t Q u i t Y o u B a b y , " o n its first a l b u m in 1 9 6 8 , Led Zeppelin I. D u r i n g
the e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s , t h e g r o u p h a d b e f r i e n d e d t h e D i x o n f a m i l y o n its v i s -
its to C h i c a g o a n d h a d p u b l i c l y p a i d h o m a g e to A m e r i c a n b l u e s p i o -
n e e r s . T h e g r o u p h a d failed to credit t w o o t h e r s o n g s f r o m Led Zep-
pelin II, " B r i n g It o n H o m e " a n d " T h e L e m o n S o n g , " w h i c h r e s e m b l e d
o t h e r D i x o n c o m p o s i t i o n s . U n b e k n o w n s t to D i x o n , his p u b l i s h i n g
company, Arc Music, had negotiated a settlement with Led Zeppelin
o v e r t h o s e u n c r e d i t e d s o n g s , b u t h a d n e g l e c t e d to i n f o r m D i x o n or
p a y h i m the r e c o v e r e d royalties until l o n g after the s e t t l e m e n t . B y the
late 1 9 8 0 s , L e d Z e p p e l i n w o u l d n o t e a g e r l y g r a n t e i t h e r w r i t i n g credit
or royalties t o D i x o n over " W h o l e L o t t a L o v e . " T h e p r o c e e d s o f that
s e t t l e m e n t h e l p e d D i x o n start t h e B l u e s H e a v e n F o u n d a t i o n , d e d i -
c a t e d to h e l p i n g a g i n g c o m p o s e r s a n d p e r f o r m e r s r e c o u p s o m e of the
r e w a r d s for their w o r k in y e a r s b e f o r e t h e y h a d a c h a n c e to d e v e l o p
sophisticated business and legal acumen. W h e n Dixon passed away
in 1992, his l e g e n d h a d g r o w n f r o m brilliant c o m p o s e r a n d p e r f o r m e r
to b r a v e b u s i n e s s p i o n e e r . D i x o n w a s a m o n g the first b l u e s artists
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 119

to w r e s t control of rights a n d royalties f r o m e x p l o i t a t i v e r e c o r d and

publishing companies. 3

T h e relationship b e t w e e n blues c o m p o s e r s a n d rock artists is c o m -

plex. T h e r e are rarely o b v i o u s g o o d g u y s a n d b a d g u y s in the stories of
disputes over credit, influence, a n d royalties. In 1956, Elvis Presley rev-
olutionized p o p u l a r m u s i c b y introducing s t r i p p e d - d o w n , h i g h - p o w e r
southern r h y t h m a n d blues to m a i n s t r e a m w h i t e a u d i e n c e s a r o u n d the
w o r l d . H e did so b y recording s o m e s o n g s that African A m e r i c a n artists
h a d distributed to lesser acclaim just a f e w years before, s u c h as Big
M a m a T h o r n t o n ' s " H o u n d D o g . " W h i l e T h o r n t o n ' s v e r s i o n g a i n e d leg-
e n d a r y status a m o n g blues fans in the 1950s, it b a r e l y s c r a t c h e d the
w h i t e p o p m a r k e t . Presley's version, o n the other h a n d , sold t w o mil-
lion copies in 1956 a n d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o p p e d the p o p , country, and
r h y t h m a n d b l u e s charts. P r e s l e y ' s appeal t r a n s c e n d e d racial a n d re-
gional lines a n d o p e n e d u p several g e n e r a t i o n s of y o u n g p e o p l e from
a r o u n d the g l o b e to the p o w e r of African A m e r i c a n m u s i c . Yet Presley4

r e m a i n s a controversial figure to m a n y critics, w h o consider his w o r k

" i n a u t h e n t i c " b e c a u s e h e r e a p e d far greater r e w a r d s t h a n p r e v i o u s or
c o n t e m p o r a r y b l a c k artists w h o s e w o r k w a s just as exciting. M u s i c jour-
nalist N e l s o n G e o r g e h a s called Presley " a d a m n e d l a z y s t u d e n t " of
b l a c k culture a n d a " m e d i o c r e interpretive artist." C h u c k D , the leader
a n d lyricist of the rap g r o u p Public E n e m y , sings " E l v i s w a s a hero to
m o s t , b u t h e d i d n ' t m e a n shit to m e . " W h e t h e r in g o o d faith or b a d ,
w h i t e p e r f o r m e r s a l m o s t a l w a y s r e a p e d larger r e w a r d s than their black
influences a n d songwriters. A s Tricia R o s e h a s a r g u e d , w h i t e n e s s mat-
ters in the story of the c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n of b l a c k cultural expression.
B y virtue of their w h i t e n e s s , m a n y artists participated in styles and
subcultures that e m e r g e d from the r h y t h m a n d b l u e s tradition and
" c r o s s e d o v e r " w h a t w a s until o n l y recently a g a p i n g social a n d eco-
n o m i c c h a s m b e t w e e n b l a c k m u s i c a n d w h i t e c o n s u m e r s . W h i t e rockers
w e n t w h e r e b l a c k artists c o u l d not. E v e n w h e n blacks c o u l d cross over,
w h i t e artists h a v e h a d better opportunities to capitalize on the public-
ity a n d distribution s y s t e m s . For instance, m a n y " a l t e r n a t i v e " or " r o c k "
radio stations will occasionally p l a y rap m u s i c , b u t o n l y if it is b y w h i t e
artists s u c h as the Beastie B o y s , L i m p Bizkit, or K i d R o c k . 5

But the politics a n d e c o n o m i c s of cultural e x c h a n g e a n d translation

are not s i m p l e a n d unidirectional. Like Elvis, m a n y later blues-rock
stars s u c h as Eric Clapton, the Rolling Stones, a n d B o n n i e Raitt h e l p e d
publicize the w o r k of a l m o s t forgotten blues artists. O t h e r s , s u c h as L e d
 120 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

Z e p p e l i n arid the B e a c h B o y s , h a v e g r a n t e d credit to c o m p o s e r s s u c h as

D i x o n a n d C h u c k B e r r y u n d e r legal duress. T h e r e is v e r y little differ-
ence in the p a s s i o n or sincerity b e h i n d the w o r k of M u d d y Waters a n d
that of Eric Clapton. H o w e v e r , there is a n i n d i s p u t a b l e c h a s m b e t w e e n
the reception of Waters's w o r k in the 1950s a n d that of C l a p t o n ' s hits of
the 1970s: B e c a u s e h e is w h i t e , C l a p t o n w a s in a better position to ex-
ploit vastly better b u s i n e s s conditions a n d b r o a d e r c o n s u m e r m a r k e t s
than Waters w a s . C l a p t o n e m e r g e d at a v e r y different t i m e . N o n e t h e -
less, m a n y m u s i c fans n o w k n o w a n d appreciate the w o r k of Willie
Dixon, M u d d y Waters, a n d R o b e r t J o h n s o n b e c a u s e of Elvis Presley,
Eric C l a p t o n , J i m m y P a g e , a n d others.
T h e simplistic story of the relationship is that y o u n g e r w h i t e per-
formers " s t o l e " material f r o m aging " a u t h e n t i c " c o m p o s e r s s u c h as
Willie D i x o n , S o n n y B o y W i l l i a m s o n , or Son H o u s e . But tracing influ-
ence t h r o u g h s o m e t h i n g as organic a n d d y n a m i c as A m e r i c a n m u s i c is
n e v e r simple. B l u e s - b a s e d m u s i c is often the p r o d u c t of c o m m o n a n d
standard c h o r d structures a n d patterns. R e l y i n g on or referring to a p a r -
ticular influence can b e as i m p o r t a n t as a n y " o r i g i n a l " contribution to a
w o r k . A c o m p o s e r m i g h t e m p l o y a familiar riff w i t h i n a n e w c o m p o s i -
tion as a signal that the n e w s o n g is p a r t of o n e specific tradition within
the v a s t m u l t i f a c e t e d c a n o n of A m e r i c a n m u s i c . Influence is inspira-
tion, a n d s o n g s talk to e a c h other t h r o u g h g e n e r a t i o n s . A s Willie D i x o n
w r o t e : " W h e n y o u ' r e a writer, y o u d o n ' t h a v e t i m e to listen to every-
b o d y else's thing. Y o u get their things m i x e d u p w i t h y o u r ideas a n d the
next thing y o u k n o w , y o u ' r e d o i n g s o m e t h i n g that s o u n d s like s o m e -
b o d y e l s e . " B e c a u s e repetition a n d revision are s u c h central tropes in
A m e r i c a n m u s i c , r e w a r d i n g a n d e n c o u r a g i n g originality is a trouble-
s o m e project in the m u s i c industry. 6

In 1948, M u d d y Waters released a s o n g for the C h e s s b r o t h e r s ' Aris-

tocrat label called " F e e l L i k e G o i n ' H o m e . " It w a s Waters's first national
r h y t h m a n d blues hit. " F e e l Like G o i n ' H o m e " w a s a revised v e r s i o n of
a s o n g Waters h a d recorded on his front p o r c h in Mississippi for the
folklorist A l a n L o m a x in 1 9 4 1 . After singing that s o n g , w h i c h h e told
L o m a x w a s entitled " C o u n t r y B l u e s , " Waters told L o m a x a s t o r y of h o w
h e c a m e to w r i t e it. " I m a d e that b l u e u p in ' 3 8 , " Waters said. " I m a d e it
on a b o u t the e i g h t h of October, ' 3 8 . . . . I w a s fixin' a p u n c t u r e o n a car.
I h a d b e e n mistreated b y a girl, it w a s just r u n n i n g in m y m i n d to sing
that s o n g . . . . Well, I just felt b l u e , a n d the s o n g fell into m y m i n d a n d it
c o m e to m e just like that a n d I started s i n g i n g . " T h e n L o m a x , w h o k n e w
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 121

of the R o b e r t J o h n s o n recording of a similar t u n e called " W a l k i n g

B l u e s , " a s k e d Waters if there w e r e a n y other b l u e s s o n g s that u s e d the
s a m e t u n e . " T h e r e ' s b e e n s o m e b l u e s p l a y e d like t h a t , " Waters replied.
" T h i s song c o m e s from the cotton field a n d a b o y o n c e p u t a record
o u t — R o b e r t J o h n s o n . H e p u t it out as n a m e d 'Walking B l u e s . ' . . . I h e a r d
the t u n e before I h e a r d it on the record. I l e a r n e d it f r o m S o n H o u s e .
That's a boy w h o could pick a guitar." 7

In this brief p a s s a g e , Waters offers five a c c o u n t s of the origin of

" C o u n t r y B l u e s . " At first, Waters asserts his o w n active a u t h o r s h i p , say-
ing h e " m a d e i t " on a specific date u n d e r specific conditions. T h e n
Waters expresses the " p a s s i v e " e x p l a n a t i o n of a u t h o r s h i p as received
k n o w l e d g e — n o t unlike Harriet B e e c h e r S t o w e ' s authorship of Uncle
Tom's Cabin—that " i t c o m e to m e just like t h a t . " A f t e r L o m a x raises the
question of J o h n s o n ' s influence, Waters, w i t h o u t s h a m e , m i s g i v i n g s , or
trepidation, says that h e h e a r d a v e r s i o n of that song b y J o h n s o n , b u t
that his m e n t o r S o n H o u s e t a u g h t it to h i m . M o s t significantly, Waters
declares in the m i d d l e of that c o m p l e x g e n e a l o g y that " t h i s s o n g c o m e s
from the cotton f i e l d . "
W h a t m i g h t s e e m to s o m e observers a tangle of contradictions
m i g h t instead b e a n i m p o r t a n t complication. Waters h a d n o p r o b l e m
stating, believing, a n d d e f e n d i n g all five a c c o u n t s of the origin of
" C o u n t r y B l u e s . " To Waters, o n e e x p l a n a t i o n did n o t cancel out the oth-
ers. B l u e s logic is neither linear n o r B o o l e a n . B l u e s i d e o l o g y is not in-
vested in s o m e abstract n o t i o n of " p r o g r e s s " a n d t h u s does n o t cele-
b r a t e the R e v o l u t i o n a r y for its o w n s a k e . T h e b l u e s c o m p o s i t i o n a l ethic
is c o m p l e x a n d synergistic, relying o n s i m u l t a n e o u s l y exploring a n d ex-
tending the c o m m o n e l e m e n t s of the tradition. Blues artists are re-
w a r d e d for p u n c t u a t i o n w i t h i n collaboration, distinction w i t h i n a c o m -
munity, a n d a n ability to t o u c h a b o d y of signs s h a r e d a m o n g all m e m -
bers of a n a u d i e n c e . W h i l e M u d d y Waters u s e d the m e t a p h o r " f r o m the
cotton f i e l d , " o t h e r artists s a y that inspiration c o m e s to t h e m " f r o m the
air." T h e y call their s o n g s " a i r m u s i c . " T h e e l e m e n t s a n d t h e m e s float
a n d flow, r e a d y for a n y skilled a n d p r a c t i c e d p e r f o r m e r to b o r r o w and
p u t to use. E a c h p e r f o r m e r c a n revise the c o m m o n tropes a n d e x p a n d
the cultural c o m m o n s . A s blues scholar D a v i d E v a n s explains, blues
c o m p o s i t i o n relies o n concepts to w h i c h w e u s u a l l y assign the terms
tradition, inspiration, a n d improvisation. But blues singers do n o t see
these as separate a n d distinct factors. T h e y are o n e p r o c e s s . B e c a u s e
blues c o m p o s e r s do not ask t h e m s e l v e s w h a t is particularly traditional
 122 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

a b o u t their tradition, t h e y do n o t feel b o u n d to tradition. B e c a u s e they

do n o t isolate a process called " i m p r o v i s a t i o n , " t h e y feel n o c o m p u l s i o n
to i m p r o v i s e e v e r y time t h e y p l a y a particular song. B l u e s artists often
express " n e w n e s s " passively, as if the original or i m p r o v i s a t o r y ele-
m e n t s " j u s t c a m e " to t h e m from the air or the cotton field. 8

W h e t h e r the b a s i s of the s o n g c a m e f r o m the cotton field o r not,

J o h n s o n r e c o r d e d it before either H o u s e or Waters. But w e r e all of
these recordings really of the " s a m e " s o n g ? J o h n s o n ' s 1937 recording of
" W a l k i n g B l u e s " a n d Waters's 1941 " C o u n t r y B l u e s " share m a n y qual-
ities. T h e v e r s e - a n d - c h o r u s structures of b o t h s o n g s ( A B A B ) are identi-
cal, b u t that structure is c o m m o n if n o t s t a n d a r d for c o u n t r y blues
s o n g s . B o t h songs e m p l o y similar guitar solos u s i n g a bottleneck slide.
A n d as m u s i c scholar J o h n C o w l e y has d e m o n s t r a t e d , they b o t h share
a c o m m o n ancestor in S o n H o u s e ' s " M y B l a c k M a m a , " w h i c h H o u s e
s o m e t i m e s called " W a l k i n g B l u e s . " 9

M a n y of the lyrics of J o h n s o n ' s " W a l k i n g B l u e s " also r e s e m b l e

those of Waters's " C o u n t r y B l u e s . " B o t h s o n g s feature the classic blues
line " I ' v e b e e n mistreated baby, a n d I d o n ' t m i n d d y i n g . " C o n s i d e r
J o h n s o n ' s first t w o verses:

I woke up this morning, feeling round for my shoes

Tell everybody I got these walking blues
Woke up this morning, feeling round, oh, for my shoes
But you know about that, I got these old walking blues.

Lord, I feel like blowing my old lonesome home

Got up this morning now, Bernice was gone
Lord I feel like blowing my old. lonesome home
Well I got up this morning, all I had was gone.10

A n d here are the first t w o v e r s e s to Waters's version:

Ah, it gets later on in the evening, child. I feel like, like blowing my home
I woke up this morning to find my, my little baby gone
Later on in the evening man, man, Ifeel like, like blowing my home
Well I woke up this morning baby, to find my little baby gone.

Well now, some folks say the worried, worried blues ain't bad
That's the miserablest feeling child I most, most ever had
Some folks tell me man that the worried blues ain't bad
Well that's the miserablest old feeling, honey now, ooh now gal, I most ever had} 1
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 123

Both songs deal w i t h the s a m e story. T h e s i n g e r ' s love h a s left h i m , so

he feels like " b l o w i n g " his h o m e a n d h e d o e s n ' t m i n d dying. A legal
claim to a u t h o r s h i p o v e r these lyrics w o u l d require a n a r g u m e n t that
o n e p e r s o n deserves m o n o p o l y control over these v e r y c o m m o n ex-
pressions of a n a l m o s t universal experience: frustration a n d resignation
over a failed love affair. T h e " f e e l " of these t w o v e r s i o n s is v e r y distinct.
Waters, for instance, s y n c o p a t e s his lyric delivery in " C o u n t r y B l u e s "
m u c h m o r e t h a n J o h n s o n does in " W a l k i n g B l u e s . "
Waters r e c o r d e d versions of this song several m o r e times in his ca-
reer, e a c h t i m e c h a n g i n g the order of certain stanzas. E a c h v e r s i o n tells
the s a m e story, contains a slide solo, a n d shares the v e r s e structure. Yet
each is a v e r y different song. Waters's 1948 v e r s i o n " I Feel L i k e G o i n g
H o m e , " is electrified, u p - t e m p o , a n d " r o c k s " m o r e t h a n his acoustic
version that L o m a x recorded. Waters's v o i c e lacks the gravelly g r o w l of
the earlier v e r s i o n s . It occasionally a l m o s t s q u e a l s — m o r e like B o b b y
Blue B l a n d t h a n Robert J o h n s o n or S o n H o u s e — y e t distinctly M u d d y
Waters. T h e 1948 hit v e r s i o n established Waters's " s i g n a t u r e " s o u n d ,
w h i c h n o artist, b l a c k or w h i t e , A m e r i c a n or British, w o u l d e v e r capture
or imitate. F o r Waters, originality a n d authenticity w e r e n o t in the lyrics
or c h o r d s e q u e n c e . T h e y w e r e in his v o i c e , his passion, his presentation,
his m o t i o n . T h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n for Waters to s e e k a legally granted
m o n o p o l y over his style. M u d d y Waters a l r e a d y enjoyed a natural
monopoly.
T h e s e a r e a e s t h e t i c a n d ethical i s s u e s m o r e t h a n l e g a l o n e s . W h a t
if R o b e r t J o h n s o n — h a d h e l i v e d — h a d filed suit a g a i n s t M u d d y Wa-
ters o v e r c o m p o s e r ' s rights for " W a l k i n g B l u e s " ? W a t e r s ' s b e s t de-
fense m i g h t h a v e b e e n that t h e e l e m e n t s of b o t h s o n g s c a m e " f r o m
the c o t t o n f i e l d " a n d w e r e t h u s a l r e a d y p a r t of the p u b l i c d o m a i n
l o n g b e f o r e J o h n s o n r e c o r d e d his v e r s i o n . Yet t h e s e s a m e i s s u e s of
style a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k t h e d i s p u t e o v e r Willie D i x o n ' s c o m p o s i -
tion a n d M u d d y W a t e r s ' s r e c o r d i n g of " Y o u N e e d L o v e " a n d L e d
Zeppelin's " W h o l e Lotta L o v e . " Dixon and Led Zeppelin never met
in a c o u r t r o o m . T h e c a s e w a s settled for u n d i s c l o s e d t e r m s after t w o
y e a r s of n e g o t i a t i o n . B o t h s o n g s do s h a r e s o m e lyrics, b u t t h e y b o t h
t a k e e l e m e n t s f r o m t h e d e e p w e l l of t h e b l u e s tradition. W h a t ' s m o r e ,
the t w o s o n g s h a v e c o m p l e t e l y different " f e e l s . " T h e y d o different
w o r k , s p e a k to different c o n d i t i o n s , a n d strike different a u d i e n c e s in
different w a y s . T h e y are v e r y different s o n g s . D i x o n s u f f e r e d greatly
d u r i n g his career at the h a n d s of u n s c r u p u l o u s a n d exploitative
 124 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

h a n d l e r s w h o m a n i p u l a t e d the c o p y r i g h t l a w s to d e n y h i m l o n g - t e r m
r e w a r d s for his brilliant w o r k . B u t D i x o n did n o t " o w n " t h e b l u e s a e s -
thetic as e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h " Y o u N e e d L o v e " a n y m o r e t h a n R o b e r t
J o h n s o n " o w n e d " the e l e m e n t s of " W a l k i n g B l u e s . " If t h e c a s e h a d
m a d e it to trial, the results w o u l d h a v e b e e n i m p o s s i b l e to predict.
H o w e v e r , in a n e r a a n d i n d u s t r y that h a v e g r o w n a c c u s t o m e d to
" p r o p e r t y t a l k , " l a w s u i t s h a v e b e c o m e f r e q u e n t tools f o r r e s o l v i n g
d i s p u t e s o v e r a u t h o r s h i p , o w n e r s h i p , a n d originality.
W h i l e o w n e r s h i p is a s l o p p y a n d a l m o s t u n d e f i n a b l e quality in the
blues tradition, there is a real a n d significant claim to originality in
blues m u s i c . Blues originality is just v e r y different from the standard
E u r o p e a n m o d e l . Originality in the blues is p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d . P e n
a n d p a p e r n e v e r enter the e q u a t i o n unless the song is c o n s i d e r e d for
recording a n d distribution. In his 1978 e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y Blues from
the Delta, folklorist William Ferris argues that blues artists h a v e a n o t i o n
of authorship a n d originality that lies n o t in the r a w materials e m -
p l o y e d for the c o m p o s i t i o n , b u t in the style a n d presentation. Ferris
states that m a n y blues singers s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a d m i t learning a partic-
ular s o n g f r o m a n o t h e r artist a n d claim a u t h o r s h i p for it. S o m e artists
e v e n claim authorship of classic folk ballads like " J o h n H e n r y . " Ferris
exemplifies this p o i n t t h r o u g h a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h b l u e s a n d g o s p e l
singer S o n n y M a t t h e w s :

I'll hear somebody else sing it and then I'll put my words like I want
them in there. . . . I just sing it in my voice and put the words in there
like I want them. Them my words there. I spaced them words like that
on a contention that so many peoples singing alike, till you know
that's just about to put a ruination on the gospel singing in this part.
So many peoples is trying to imitate other folks, you know. . . . I will
sing their songs, but I will put the words my way.

Ferris also quotes A r t h u r L e e Williams of Birdie, Mississippi, o n the

process of blues c o m p o s i t i o n : " Y o u sit d o w n a n d h u m to yourself. You
try to see if that fits a n d if that d o n ' t w o r k , y o u h u m y o u s o m e t h i n g else.
A n d then too y o u m a y pick out a v e r s e f r o m s o m e other s o n g a n d
switch it a r o u n d a little b i t . " T h e blues tradition v a l u e s " o r i g i n a l i t y "
w i t h o u t a confining sense of " o w n e r s h i p . " In the b l u e s tradition, w h a t
is original is the " v a l u e - a d d e d " aspect of a w o r k , u s u a l l y delivered
through performance. 12
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 125

Creativity a n d c o m p o s i t i o n ethics w i t h i n the blues tradition derive

from West African a n t e c e d e n t s . W h i l e the cultures of West Africa are
diverse a n d c o m p l i c a t e d , s o m e cultural f o r m s h e l p e d f o r m a " c u l t u r a l
c o m m o n s " that exists t o d a y across the Atlantic, linking m a n y of those
in the West African diaspora to those o n the continent t h r o u g h a w e b of
familiar signs a n d tropes. A n t h r o p o l o g i s t s a n d musicologists h a v e em-
p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of the " c i r c l e " as the site of b o t h creativity and
c o m m u n i t y in African cultures. T h e m u s i c , lyrics, a n d d a n c e that em-
anate from the circle often reflect these attributes: r h y t h m i c c o m p l e x i t y
a n d syncopation; individual i m p r o v i s a t i o n a n d stylization; call-and-re-
sponse; e n g a g e m e n t b e t w e e n individuals a n d the c o m m u n i t y at large;
c o m m e n t a r y in the f o r m of satire, parody, or boastful c o m p e t i t i o n ; and
a sense of g r o u p c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h e tension b e t w e e n individual im-
provisation a n d c o m m u n a l flow p r o d u c e s a n d celebrates b o t h a balance
b e t w e e n individuals a n d the c o m m u n i t y a n d a safe s p a c e for individ-
ual expression of d a r i n g a n d excellence. E a c h v a l u e d e p e n d s o n the
other. T h e c o m m u n i t y r e w a r d s b o t h individual " s t y l i z a t i o n " a n d m a s -
tery of a c a n o n . W h i l e other traditions a r o u n d the w o r l d e m p l o y these
d y n a m i c s as w e l l , West African aesthetic principles h a v e h a d a clear
a n d p r o f o u n d effect on A m e r i c a n culture t h r o u g h m u s i c , dance, prose,
poetry, a n d h u m o r . T h e " s h a p e " of West African creativity is a circle, n o t
a line. 13

This h a s created a cultural v a l u e s y s t e m a m o n g West African-de-

rived traditions that differs f r o m the " p r o g r e s s i v e " v a l u e s y s t e m that
e m a n a t e s f r o m the E u r o p e a n artistic tradition a n d i n f o r m s E u r o p e a n
a n d A m e r i c a n copyright l a w . 14
This does not m e a n that A m e r i c a n c o p y -
right law, as d e s i g n e d a n d e m p l o y e d t h r o u g h m o s t of A m e r i c a n history,
conflicts w i t h African principles of expression. In fact, w h e n a c o p y r i g h t
s y s t e m is loose a n d b a l a n c e d , it c a n a m p l i f y the positive e l e m e n t s of
West African aesthetic tradition. In principle, copyright l a w does n o t
prevent artists f r o m taking from the " c o m m o n s . " It s u p p o r t s the idea
that n e w artists build u p o n the w o r k s of others. It r e w a r d s improvisa-
tion w i t h i n a tradition. But originally, c o p y r i g h t regulated o n l y the pro-
liferation of physical a n d c o m p l e t e c o p i e s . N o w c o p y r i g h t regulates
(but does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y forbid) p e r f o r m a n c e , t r a n s f o r m a t i v e w o r k s ,
slight a n d o b l i q u e reference, a n d e v e n access. A n d c o p y r i g h t s u s e d to
expire o n definite dates, thus constantly enriching the public d o m a i n
with n e w material. N o w , c o p y r i g h t terms last far b e y o n d m o s t peo-
ple's life span, a n d C o n g r e s s k e e p s extending t h e m , m a k i n g c o p y r i g h t
 126 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

protection virtually p e r p e t u a l . A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t as it h a s b e e n cor-

r u p t e d at the turn of the twenty-first c e n t u r y clearly conflicts w i t h the
aesthetic principles of West African m u s i c a n d dance. Yet A m e r i c a n
copyright regulates West African m u s i c a l styles m o r e t h a n ever.
Very little A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c since 1956 h a s n o t b e e n influ-
e n c e d b y the b l u e s tradition. T h e r e f o r e a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the musical
p r o d u c t s on the A m e r i c a n m a r k e t since 1956 h a v e e m e r g e d from the
p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d blues aesthetic. Simultaneously, the stakes for con-
trol of p u b l i s h i n g a n d recording ( k n o w n as " m e c h a n i c a l " ) rights h a v e
c l i m b e d e x p o n e n t i a l l y as the record b u s i n e s s has a s s u m e d a major place
in the A m e r i c a n economy. A n d as the c o m p a n i e s that control a n d re-
p r o d u c e the p r o d u c t s that carry this creative w o r k h a v e consolidated
a n d g r o w n m o r e p o w e r f u l , the legal a n d c o m m e r c i a l b a l a n c e of the
copyright s y s t e m h a s shifted to h e a v i l y favor established w o r k s . T h e s e
shifts h a v e h a n d c u f f e d n e w e r artists w h o w a n t to participate in the
chain of creativity.

POISONING THE WELL

Just before the Beatles b r o k e u p , lead guitarist G e o r g e H a r r i s o n w a s

b u s y c o m p o s i n g s o n g s for his first solo a l b u m , All Things Must Pass.
H a r r i s o n a n d his n e w b a n d , w h i c h i n c l u d e d k e y b o a r d p l a y e r Billy Pre-
ston, w e r e playing a concert in C o p e n h a g e n , D e n m a r k , in 1970. D u r i n g
a b a c k s t a g e press c o n f e r e n c e , H a r r i s o n slipped away, g r a b b e d an
acoustic guitar, a n d started p l a y i n g a r o u n d w i t h s i m p l e c h o r d struc-
tures. H e e a s e d into a p a t t e r n of alternating a m i n o r II c h o r d w i t h a
major V chord. T h e n h e c h a n t e d the w o r d s " H a l l e l u j a h " a n d " H a r e K r -
i s h n a " over the chords. S o o n other m e m b e r s of his b a n d a n d e n t o u r a g e
g a t h e r e d a r o u n d h i m , joining in on the s o n g in four-part h a r m o n y . B e -
t w e e n c h o r u s e s of " H a l l e l u j a h " a n d " H a r e K r i s h n a " H a r r i s o n i m p r o -
v i s e d s o m e verses that i n c l u d e d lyrics s u c h as " M y S w e e t L o r d , " " D e a r ,
dear L o r d , " a n d " I really w a n t to see y o u ; I really w a n t to b e w i t h y o u . "
Over the n e x t f e w w e e k s , H a r r i s o n a n d Preston returned to that j a m ,
c o m p o s i n g a n d recording the entire text of w h a t b e c a m e H a r r i s o n ' s first
solo hit, " M y S w e e t L o r d . " 1 5

After the s o n g g a i n e d w i d e acclaim a n d b r o a d distribution, a b a n d

called the B e l m o n t s r e c o r d e d a t o n g u e - i n - c h e e k v e r s i o n of " M y S w e e t
L o r d " that a p p e n d e d the c h o r u s lyrics from the 1962 Chiffons tune
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 127

" H e ' s So F i n e , " c o m p o s e d b y R o n a l d M a c k a n d p r o d u c e d b y Phil S p e c -

tor, to the H a r r i s o n hit. T h e similarities b e t w e e n " M y S w e e t L o r d " and
" H e ' s So F i n e " w e r e not lost on B r i g h t Tunes M u s i c C o r p o r a t i o n either.
Bright Tunes w a s the publishing c o m p a n y that controlled the rights to
" H e ' s So F i n e . " Bright Tunes filed suit against Harrison, a n d the case
w e n t to trial in 1976. In his decision, the district j u d g e closely e x a m i n e d
the b u i l d i n g b l o c k s of b o t h s o n g s . " H e ' s So F i n e " consists of t w o " m o -
tifs," J u d g e R i c h a r d O w e n c o n c l u d e d . T h e first motif (A) is the array of
notes " s o l - m e - r e . " T h e s e c o n d motif (B) is the p h r a s e " s o l - l a - d o - l a - d o . "
O w e n g r a n t e d that s t a n d i n g a l o n e n e i t h e r of these motifs is n o v e l
e n o u g h to qualify for protection.
H o w e v e r , w h a t matters is n o t the b u i l d i n g blocks t h e m s e l v e s , b u t
their a r r a n g e m e n t a n d order within the greater structure. " H e ' s So
F i n e " contains the pattern A - A - A - A - B - B - B - B . T h e pattern of four repe-
titions of A f o l l o w e d b y four repetitions of B is " a h i g h l y u n i q u e pat-
t e r n , " O w e n ruled. T h e n , e x a m i n i n g " M y S w e e t L o r d , " O w e n stated
that the H a r r i s o n s o n g u s e d the s a m e m o t i f A four t i m e s , a n d then motif
B three t i m e s . In p l a c e of the fourth repetition of B, H a r r i s o n e m p l o y e d
a transitional p a s s a g e (T) of the s a m e length as B . " M y S w e e t L o r d " goes
A - A - A - A - B - B - B - T . In b o t h s o n g s , the c o m p o s e r s u s e d a slippery " g r a c e
n o t e " in the fourth refrain of B (or in the substituted transitional p h r a s e
T, in the case of " M y S w e e t L o r d " ) . In addition, O w e n w r o t e , " t h e har-
m o n i e s of b o t h s o n g s are i d e n t i c a l . " H a r r i s o n ' s expert w i t n e s s e s as-
serted that the differences b e t w e e n the s o n g s m a t t e r e d m o r e t h a n the
similarities. T h e y a r g u e d that the lyrics, the syllabic patterns, a n d syn-
copations distinguished each song. F o r instance, the h i g h l y m e a n i n g -
ful t e r m s " H a l l e l u j a h " a n d " H a r e K r i s h n a " in " M y S w e e t L o r d " re-
place the n o n s e n s e w o r d a n d r h y t h m i c p l a c e h o l d e r " d u l a n g " from
" H e ' s So F i n e . " 1 6

In stark contrast to the c o m p l e x a n d n u a n c e d " w e b of e x p r e s s i o n "

analysis that J u d g e L e a r n e d H a n d prescribed for m o t i o n picture cases
c o n c e r n i n g derivative w o r k s , federal courts ask t w o questions to deter-
m i n e w h e t h e r a s o n g infringes o n the c o p y r i g h t for a n earlier song. T h e
plaintiff m u s t s h o w that the s e c o n d c o m p o s e r h a d access to the first
song a n d that the s e c o n d s o n g s h o w s " s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y " to the
first. Similarity w i t h o u t access, the result of a r a n d o m coincidence,
w o u l d not infringe. T h e r e are o n l y eight n o t e s in a major scale, after all.
A c c i d e n t s do h a p p e n . T h e n e e d to establish access necessarily protects
hits better t h a n obscure s o n g s . O n the other h a n d , hits are m o r e likely
 128 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

to stick in p e o p l e ' s m i n d s , m o r e likely to flow t h r o u g h m u s i c a l c o m -

m u n i t i e s as influences a n d inspirations, a n d m o r e likely to a d d ele-
m e n t s to the musical " w e l l . " 1 7

G e o r g e H a r r i s o n w e n t to the w e l l o n c e too often. H e w a s raised in

the b l u e s tradition, as e m b o d i e d b y the English w o r k i n g class in the
1950s a n d 1960s. H e a n d his pals s p e n t their y o u t h m e m o r i z i n g riffs
from C h u c k Berry, M u d d y Waters, a n d B u d d y H o l l y records. A m e r i c a n
r h y t h m a n d blues w e r e irresistible sources of p o w e r f u l stories a n d e m o -
tions, a n d influenced e v e r y t h i n g H a r r i s o n a n d his peers did. B o t h H a r -
rison a n d Preston testified v e h e m e n t l y that neither o n e of t h e m consid-
ered " H e ' s So F i n e " a n inspiration for " M y S w e e t L o r d . " T h e Chiffons
song n e v e r entered their m i n d s , t h e y said. But " H e ' s So F i n e " t o p p e d
the p o p m u s i c chart in the U n i t e d States for five w e e k s in the s u m m e r
of 1963. It r e a c h e d the n u m b e r 12 spot in E n g l a n d d u r i n g that s a m e
t i m e — a s u m m e r w h e n the top s o n g o n the British p o p charts b e l o n g e d
to the Beatles. B o t h Preston i n the U n i t e d States a n d H a r r i s o n in Eng-
land h a d a m p l e access to the C h i f f o n s ' recording. T h e y b o t h k n e w of the
song, but neither c o n s c i o u s l y a p p e a l e d to it as a s o u r c e for " M y S w e e t
L o r d . " J u d g e O w e n a g r e e d : " S e e k i n g the w e l l s p r i n g s of m u s i c a l c o m -
p o s i t i o n — w h y a c o m p o s e r chooses the s u c c e s s i o n of n o t e s a n d the h a r -
m o n i e s h e d o e s — w h e t h e r it b e G e o r g e H a r r i s o n or R i c h a r d W a g n e r is
a fascinating inquiry. It is apparent f r o m the extensive c o l l o q u y b e t w e e n
the C o u r t a n d H a r r i s o n covering forty p a g e s in the transcript that n e i -
ther H a r r i s o n nor Preston w e r e c o n s c i o u s of the fact that t h e y w e r e uti-
lizing the ' H e ' s So F i n e ' t h e m e . H o w e v e r , t h e y in fact w e r e , for it is p e r -
fectly o b v i o u s to the listener that in m u s i c a l t e r m s , the t w o s o n g s are
virtually identical except for o n e p h r a s e . " T h e n , precipitously e m p l o y -
ing the p a s s i v e v o i c e , O w e n leapt to a conclusion that p o i s o n e d the w e l l
for s u b s e q u e n t artists:

What happened? I conclude that the composer, in seeking musical ma-

terials to clothe his thoughts, was working with various possibilities.
As he tried this possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as being one he felt
would be appealing to a prospective listener; in other words, that this
combination of sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not re-
member. Having arrived at this pleasing combination of sounds, the
recording was made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 129

song became an enormous success. Did Harrison deliberately use the

music of "He's So Fine?" I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nev-
ertheless, it is clear that "My Sweet Lord" is the very same song as
"He's So Fine" with different words, and Harrison had access to "He's
So Fine." This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no
less so even though subconsciously accomplished. 18

U n d e r this s t a n d a r d , w h i c h m a k e s " s u b c o n s c i o u s " influence illicit,

s o m e t h i n g a n artist m u s t struggle to a v o i d , M u d d y Waters w o u l d h a v e
h a d great difficulty k e e p i n g u p w i t h w h o h a d r e c o r d e d a n d m a r k e t e d
particular a r r a n g e m e n t s that w e r e c o n s i d e r e d c o m m o n property in the
Mississippi Delta, m u s i c that c a m e " f r o m the cotton f i e l d , " o r f r o m the
w e l l of tradition. T h e s t a n d a r d u s e d in the H a r r i s o n case p u t s a h e a v y
b u r d e n o n those w h o snatch a groove out of the air a n d insert it as o n e
part of a c o m p l e x creative process.
Over the n e x t t w e l v e years, e m b o l d e n e d b y the H a r r i s o n suit, c o m -
p o s e r s a n d p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n i e s that retained rights to classic A m e r i -
can songs c o n s i d e r e d p u r s u i n g legal action against m o r e recent song-
writers. In 1 9 8 1 , the c o m p a n y that o w n e d the rights to the 1928 G u s
K a h n a n d Walter D o n a l d s o n s t a n d a r d " M a k i n ' W h o o p e e " filed suit
against Yoko O n o , collaborator a n d s p o u s e of f o r m e r Beatle J o h n Len-
n o n , for her s o n g " I ' m Your A n g e l " on the 1981 a l b u m Double Fantasy.
Jazz pianist K e i t h Jarrett p u r s u e d action against Steely D a n s o n g w r i t e r s
D o n a l d F a g e n a n d Walter B e c k e r for j a z z - t i n g e d cuts f r o m their a l b u m
Gaucho. A c t i o n s s u c h as these did n o t h i n g to p r o m o t e originality and
n e w m u s i c . In fact, the p u b l i c i t y a b o u t s u c h suits p r o b a b l y retarded cre-
ativity b y generating a n a u r a of fear a n d t r e p i d a t i o n . 19

T h e n , in 1 9 8 8 , a n o t h e r artist w h o " w e n t to t h e w e l l " of t h e A m e r i -

c a n r h y t h m a n d b l u e s tradition w o n a m a j o r c a s e that w a s strikingly
s i m i l a r to t h e H a r r i s o n o r d e a l . O n l y this t i m e , the s o n g w r i t e r in q u e s -
tion, J o h n Fogerty, h a d w r i t t e n b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l s o n g a n d the later
o n e . F o g e r t y w a s a c c u s e d of c o p y i n g f r o m h i m s e l f . F o g e r t y h a d b e e n
the leader, d r i v i n g force b e h i n d , a n d chief s o n g w r i t e r of the s u c c e s s -
ful 1 9 6 0 s c o u n t r y - b l u e s - r o c k b a n d C r e e d e n c e C l e a r w a t e r R e v i v a l .
L i k e m a n y y o u n g a n d n a i v e s o n g w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g Willie D i x o n , F o -
g e r t y h a d s i g n e d a c o n t r a c t earlier in his c a r e e r that g r a n t e d all rights
to his s o n g s to a p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n y , J o n d o r a , w h i c h w a s o w n e d b y
F a n t a s y R e c o r d s . A f t e r F o g e r t y split w i t h his b a n d a n d F a n t a s y in the
e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s , h e r e f u s e d to p l a y hits f r o m h i s old c a t a l o g u e b e c a u s e h e
 130 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

r e s e n t e d t h e p e r f o r m a n c e royalties f l o w i n g to F a n t a s y a n d its presi-

dent, S a u l Z a e n t z . T h o s e y e a r s of b i t t e r n e s s p u s h e d F o g e r t y out of the
r o c k s p o t l i g h t . H i s refusal to p l a y his o l d s o n g s d i s c o n n e c t e d F o g e r t y
f r o m his f a n s . T h e n , in 1985, F o g e r t y r e l e a s e d his " c o m e b a c k " a l b u m ,
Centerfield. T h e a l b u m y i e l d e d a n u m b e r of hits that g e n e r a t e d a i r p l a y
a n d sales, i n c l u d i n g " R o c k a n d R o l l G i r l s , " w h i c h s h a r e s a c h o r d pat-
tern a n d b e a t w i t h classics s u c h as R i t c h i e V a l e n s ' s " L a B a m b a " a n d
the I s l e y B r o t h e r s ' " T w i s t a n d S h o u t , " a n d t h e title cut " C e n t e r f i e l d , "
w h i c h q u o t e s a line f r o m C h u c k B e r r y ' s s o n g " B r o w n - E y e d H a n d -
s o m e M a n , " s i g n i f y i n g that the a l b u m w a s j u s t the latest link in the
r h y t h m a n d b l u e s chain. H o w e v e r , t w o of t h e s o n g s o n the a l b u m
s e e m e d to b e direct a t t a c k s o n F o g e r t y ' s n e m e s i s , F a n t a s y p r e s i d e n t
Z a e n t z . " M r . G r e e d , w h y y o u g o t t a o w n e v e r y t h i n g that y o u see? Mr.
Greed, w h y you put a chain on everybody livin' free?" Fogerty sang
on t h e s o n g " M r . G r e e d . " A n d t h e final s o n g o n t h e a l b u m w a s called
" Z a n z K a n ' t D a n z . " T h e refrain i n c l u d e s the line " b u t h e ' l l steal y o u r
money." 2 0

Z a e n t z filed suit. But h e h a d f o u n d a stronger claim t h a n d e f a m a -

tion or libel o n w h i c h to attack Fogerty. Z a e n t z a r g u e d that the o p e n i n g
song o n Centerfield, " T h e Old M a n d o w n the R o a d , " contains a b a s s line,
r h y t h m , a n d guitar b r i d g e that are similar to those of the 1970 Cree-
d e n c e C l e a r w a t e r Revival hit " R u n t h r o u g h the J u n g l e . " W h i l e Fogerty
h a d w r i t t e n " R u n t h r o u g h the J u n g l e , " Z a e n t z still o w n e d the rights to
it. D u r i n g the j u r y trial in S a n F r a n c i s c o , b o t h sides called a series of m u -
sicologists to discuss influence a n d originality in m u s i c . T h e n F o g e r t y
took the stand w i t h his guitar in h a n d . O v e r a d a y a n d a half, F o g e r t y
p l a y e d for the j u r y s u c h songs as " P r o u d M a r y , " " D o w n o n the C o r n e r , "
a n d " F o r t u n a t e S o n " to explain his creative process. M o s t importantly,
F o g e r t y p l a y e d tapes of old H o w l i n ' Wolf a n d Bo D i d d l e y s o n g s , then
p i c k e d u p his guitar a n d p l a y e d a B o D i d d l e y s o n g called " B r i n g It
to J e r o m e , " w h i c h contains riffs a n d r h y t h m s similar to b o t h " R u n
t h r o u g h the J u n g l e " a n d " T h e O l d M a n d o w n the R o a d . " T h e j u r y
f o u n d for F o g e r t y after t w o h o u r s of d e l i b e r a t i o n . 21

T h e H a r r i s o n a n d F o g e r t y cases s h o w that the case l a w c o n c e r n i n g

the reuse of tropes a n d e l e m e n t s f r o m older s o n g s m a k e s little or n o
space for p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d m o d e l s of o r i g i n a l i t y — c o n t r i b u t i o n s of
style or delivery. J u d g e s s u c h as O w e n in the H a r r i s o n case h a v e tried
to e m p l o y the structuralist reading m e t h o d that J u d g e L e a r n e d H a n d
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 131

d e v e l o p e d (although O w e n ' s o p i n i o n s e e m s to o w e s o m e t h i n g to F r e u d
as w e l l ) . But these cases h a v e n o t yielded a n y t h i n g close to a simple or
clear s t a n d a r d for d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r o n e s o n g in the blues tradition
infringes o n another. T h e ruling in the H a r r i s o n case s e e m e d to b e n d in
favor of older c o m p o s e r s , putting the b u r d e n of clearing influences on
n e w e r s o n g w r i t e r s . Yet the j u d g m e n t in the F o g e r t y case s e e m e d to
grant " C r e e d e n c e " to the n o t i o n that s o n g w r i t e r s s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d to
d r a w from the blues tradition well.
T h e H a r r i s o n a n d F o g e r t y cases are c o n c e r n e d w i t h h o w songwrit-
ers m i g h t t r a m p l e o n the c o m p o s i t i o n r i g h t s — t h a t is, the actual notes
a n d s t r u c t u r e — o f a n o l d e r song. But there are t w o o t h e r m a j o r rights
in the " b u n d l e " of rights that m a k e u p m u s i c a l copyright: p e r f o r m -
ance rights a n d m e c h a n i c a l rights. P e r f o r m a n c e rights c o n c e r n public
concerts, radio play, j u k e b o x play, a n d other m e d i a exhibitions. Perfor-
m a n c e rights are u s u a l l y l i c e n s e d — a n d royalties c o l l e c t e d — t h r o u g h
c o n s o r t i u m s s u c h as the A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of C o m p o s e r s , A u t h o r s ,
a n d P u b l i s h e r s ( A S C A P ) a n d B r o a d c a s t M u s i c , Inc. ( B M I ) . M e c h a n i c a l
rights are the rights to r e p r o d u c e particular recordings of the song or
a l b u m . Before the 1980s, i n f r i n g e m e n t suits that dealt w i t h m e c h a n i c a l
rights generally c o n c e r n e d large-scale pirating of records a n d tapes.
Suits over c o m p o s i t i o n rights dealt w i t h the re-use of melody, h a r m o n y ,
or l y r i c s . 22

H o w e v e r , digital t e c h n o l o g y a n d the rise of u r b a n h i p - h o p culture

c o m p l i c a t e d that dichotomy. R a p does n o t u s e m e l o d y a n d h a r m o n y in
the s a m e w a y s that other f o r m s of m u s i c do. In fact, r a p artists often
" s a m p l e " bits of o t h e r s ' m e l o d y a n d h a r m o n y , a n d use those " s a m p l e s "
as part of a r h y t h m track, c o m p l e t e l y t r a n s f o r m i n g a n d recycling those
pieces of m u s i c . R a p is R e v o l u t i o n a r y b e c a u s e it did n o t e m e r g e directly
from the A m e r i c a n blues tradition. It is an e x a m p l e of a n d expression of
" A f r o d i a s p o r i c " b l a c k culture, derived in f o r m a n d function from
Caribbean music more than from American rhythm and blues. 23
How-
ever, in the U n i t e d States, rap artists u s e d w h a t e v e r b u i l d i n g b l o c k s
t h e y f o u n d in their e n v i r o n m e n t to construct a n A m e r i c a n r a p tradition.
So instead of playing similar riffs or m e l o d i e s f r o m o t h e r artists o n their
o w n i n s t r u m e n t s , early rap c o m p o s e r s w e a v e d s a m p l e s from familiar
songs into a n e w m o n t a g e of s o u n d . B y the early 1990s c o p y r i g h t cases
c o n c e r n i n g m e c h a n i c a l rights intersected w i t h the unstable principles
of c o m p o s i t i o n rights.
 132 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

FEAR O F A S A M P L I N G PLANET: H O W RAP BUM-RUSHED

COPYRIGHT LAW

O v e r the raunchy, driving J i m m y P a g e guitar chords of the L e d Z e p -

pelin s o n g " K a s h m i r , " Philadelphia rapper S c h o o l l y D b e l l o w s the
w o r d s " W a y w a y d o w n in the j u n g l e d e e p " — s i g n a t u r e of the African
A m e r i c a n folk p o e m " S i g n i f y i n g M o n k e y . " In the traditional p o e m , the
trickster m o n k e y u s e s his w i t s a n d his c o m m a n d of diction to o u t s m a r t
a m o r e p o w e r f u l adversary. T h e " S i g n i f y i n g M o n k e y " h a s a p p e a r e d in
various f o r m s in blues recordings, folktale e t h n o g r a p h i e s , the p o e t r y of
Larry N e a l , a n d the blacksploitation film Dolomite. O n l y this t i m e , the
trickster tale turns u p as the lyrics to the song " S i g n i f y i n g R a p p e r " on
S c h o o l l y D ' s 1988 a l b u m Smoke Some Kill. J i m m y P a g e did not j o i n D in
the recording studio. N o r did P a g e or L e d Z e p p e l i n g a r n e r a n y credit
on the label of Smoke Some Kill. But the c o n t r i b u t i o n — a n d the m e s -
s a g e — i s u n m i s t a k a b l e . S c h o o l l y D is " s i g n i f y i n g " o n L e d Z e p p e l i n , a
m o r e p o w e r f u l cultural force t h a n h e is. A m o n g the r a w materials avail-
able to creative b l a c k y o u t h in the deindustrialized R e a g a n - e r a cities
w e r e piles of w a r p e d vinyl, scraps of s o u n d s . Pretentions to " a u t h e n -
t i c i t y " s e e m e d silly. " C r e d i t , " in all its v a r i o u s m e a n i n g s , w a s n o t forth-
c o m i n g to b l a c k y o u t h o r b l a c k culture. W h y s h o u l d t h e y g i v e it w h e n
they w e r e n ' t receiving it? L e d Z e p p e l i n did n o t " c r e d i t " the blues m a s -
ters as often as t h e y c o u l d h a v e , so w h y s h o u l d Schoolly D do a n y t h i n g
b u t reciprocate? Yet b y rapping a n u p d a t e d a n d u n e x p u r g a t e d version
of a n African A m e r i c a n folktale, Schoolly D w a s p r o c l a i m i n g his con-
nection to s o m e t h i n g that w a s o n c e " r e a l , " b y constructing a musical
w o r k that felt n o t h i n g like " r e a l " m u s i c . R e p e a t i n g a n d reusing the
guitar riff from " K a s h m i r " w a s a transgressive a n d disrespectful a c t — a
" d i s " of L e d Z e p p e l i n a n d the culture that p r o d u c e d , r e w a r d e d , a n d
honored Led Zeppelin. 24

Schoolly D released " S i g n i f y i n g R a p p e r " a d e c a d e after rap first at-

tracted the attention of y o u n g p e o p l e a n d m u s i c executives a r o u n d the
w o r l d . T h e first rap record to attract radio p l a y a n d w i d e s p r e a d sales,
the Sugarhill G a n g ' s " R a p p e r ' s D e l i g h t " (1979), rode the t h u m p i n g in-
strumental track f r o m C h i c ' s " G o o d T i m e s , " a disco hit that also served
as the b a c k i n g track for m a n y free-form rap s o n g s of the 1970s. F r o m the
late 1970s t h r o u g h the early 1990s, m o s t rap s o n g s a d h e r e d to a n d im-
p r o v e d on the f o r m u l a p o p u l a r i z e d b y " R a p p e r ' s D e l i g h t , " s p o k e n
r h y m e s p u n c t u a t i n g a b a c k g r o u n d m o n t a g e c o n s t r u c t e d from u n a u -
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 133

thorized pieces of p r e v i o u s l y recorded m u s i c . T h e e x p a n s i o n of the

m a r k e t for rap m u s i c w a s p h e n o m e n a l . In 1987, rap records represented
11.6 percent of all the m u s i c sales in the U n i t e d States. B y 1990, rap w a s
18.3 percent of the m u s i c b u s i n e s s . 25

R a p ' s rise f r o m a n u r b a n h o b b y to a major i n d u s t r y rocked the sta-

tus quo of n o t o n l y the m u s i c industry, b u t the legal w o r l d as w e l l . Since
the late 1970s, r a p artists h a v e p u s h e d the b o u n d a r i e s of free expression
with sexually explicit lyrics a n d descriptions of v i o l e n c e b y a n d against
l a w enforcers. T h e y h a v e raised questions a b o u t society's p o w e r struc-
tures from the ghettos to the Gallerias. In m a n y cases, legal a n d societal
traditions h a d n o w a y to deal w i t h these fresh a n d strong sentiments
that d r o v e t h r o u g h A m e r i c a in a n o p e n j e e p , p o w e r e d b y a h e a v y beat.
That's w h a t h a p p e n e d w h e n a n e n t r e n c h e d a n d exciting h i p - h o p
tradition, s a m p l i n g , energized b y digital technology, e n c r o a c h e d u p o n
o n e of the m o s t a m b i g u o u s areas of the A m e r i c a n legal tradition: A m e r -
ican c o p y r i g h t law. C o m p l i c a t i n g the clash, the c o n c e p t of c o p y r i g h t h a s
b e e n d e e p l y e n t r e n c h e d in w e s t e r n literary tradition for centuries, b u t
does n o t p l a y the s a m e role in African, C a r i b b e a n , or African A m e r i c a n
oral traditions. It's far too s i m p l e a n d inaccurate to declare that c o p y -
righting h a s b e e n a w h i t e thing; s a m p l i n g , b o r r o w i n g , or q u o t i n g h a s
b e e n a b l a c k thing. T h e t u r m o i l that r a p h a s created in c o p y r i g h t l a w is
m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n just a clash of stereotypically o p p o s e d cultures. It's
not just a case of mistrust a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . R a p — f o r a m o m e n t —
revealed g a p i n g flaws in the p r e m i s e s of h o w copyright l a w gets a p -
plied to m u s i c a n d s h o w n the l a w to b e i n a d e q u a t e for e m e r g i n g c o m -
m u n i c a t i o n technologies, t e c h n i q u e s , a n d aesthetics.
T h e tension in the l a w is not b e t w e e n u r b a n lower class a n d c o r p o -
rate uberclass. It's n o t b e t w e e n b l a c k artists a n d w h i t e record e x e c u -
tives. It's not a l w a y s a result of conflicts b e t w e e n w h i t e s o n g w r i t e r s and
the b l a c k c o m p o s e r s w h o s a m p l e t h e m . It is in fact a s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n
the established entities in the m u s i c b u s i n e s s a n d those trying to get es-
tablished. It is a conflict b e t w e e n old a n d n e w . A s the m a r k e t for r a p and
the i n d u s t r y that supports it g r e w a n d m a t u r e d t h r o u g h the 1980s and
1990s, the l a w shifted c o n s i d e r a b l y in favor of established artists and
c o m p a n i e s , a n d against e m e r g i n g o n e s . S o b y the late 1990s, r a p artists
w i t h o u t the s u p p o r t of a m a j o r record c o m p a n y a n d its l a w y e r s , with-
out a large p o o l of m o n e y to p a y license fees for s a m p l e s , h a d a choice:
either d o n ' t s a m p l e or d o n ' t m a r k e t n e w m u s i c . C o p y r i g h t l a w is de-
signed to forbid the u n a u t h o r i z e d c o p y i n g or p e r f o r m a n c e of a n o t h e r ' s
 134 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

w o r k . A u t h o r i z a t i o n m e a n s licensing. Licensing m e a n s fees. Violations

b r i n g lawsuits. L a w s u i t s b r i n g settlements. B u t the practice of digital
s a m p l i n g , h a v i n g g a i n e d access to the a i r w a v e s a n d record stores less
than t w o d e c a d e s a g o , is relatively n e w to the m u s i c b u s i n e s s a n d its
l a w y e r s . For the longest t i m e , n o o n e s e e m e d to b e able to agree o n a fair
price for licensing s a m p l e s . N o o n e s e e m e d to k n o w the best w a y to
structure the fees. N o o n e s e e m e d to k n o w exactly h o w existing statutes
a n d case l a w w o u l d a p p l y to alleged violations of m u s i c a l copyrights.
A n d b e f o r e 1 9 9 1 , n o o n e h a d p u r s u e d a s a m p l i n g case t h r o u g h to a j u -
dicial r u l i n g . 26

Yet e n t e r t a i n m e n t l a w y e r s , a l a r m e d o v e r these a n d other issues, re-

acted w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of a n g e r a n d c o n c e r n . J u a n C a r l o s Thorn, a
Los A n g e l e s lawyer, m u s i c i a n , p l a y w r i g h t , a n d actor, w r o t e in 1988:

Digital sampling is a pirate's dream come true and a nightmare for all
the artists, musicians, engineers and record manufacturers. Federal
courts must update their view of piracy and interpretation of the
[Copyright] Act to meet the sophistication of digital technology.
Sounds are not ideas, but expressions, and therefore copyrighted
works. . . . Unchecked digital sampling will present the incongruous
result of a copyrighted work which is both protected by copyright but
is also part of the public domain. By any standard, digital sampling is
nothing but old fashioned piracy dressed in sleek new technology. 27

A s it e m e r g e d o n the A m e r i c a n m u s i c s c e n e in the late 1970s, h i p - h o p

m u s i c w a s c o m p o s e d of t w o layers of creative r a w material. O n the top
w a s the vocalization, the rap itself. T h e r h y m e s w e r e — a n d still a r e —
in h e a v y dialect, u r b a n African A m e r i c a n , C a r i b b e a n , or S p a n i s h , a n d
w e r e originally i m p r o v i s e d . R a p p e r s focus m u c h of their efforts on
b o a s t i n g of their o w n abilities in arenas as diverse as sex, sports, money,
k n o w l e d g e , or r h y m i n g ability. S o m e t i m e s raps s e r v e to s h o w disre-
spect for p e o p l e in authority, or e v e n o t h e r r a p p e r s . M a n y of the vocal
habits of r a p p e r s are easily traced to the African A m e r i c a n tradition of
" t o a s t i n g , " or " p l a y i n g the d o z e n s , " a n d ultimately to the A f r i c a n oral
tradition of " s i g n i f y i n g . " 28
In addition, rap styles of the last t w e n t y
years b e a r significant r e s e m b l a n c e a n d o w e a h e a v y d e b t to scat singers
like C a b Calloway, r h y t h m a n d b l u e s p e r f o r m e r s like Otis R e d d i n g , a n d
rock precursors like B o Diddley. A m o r e direct d e b t s h o u l d b e paid to
J a m e s B r o w n , Isaac H a y e s , G e o r g e Clinton, a n d M u h a m m a d A l i . 29
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 135

U n d e r l y i n g the rap v o c a l tracks is the b e d of m u s i c . B e c a u s e the art

w a s originally p e r f o r m e d a n d perfected b y disk j o c k e y s , the r h y t h m s
a n d m e l o d i e s of the tunes w e r e essentially lifted f r o m records that w e r e
p o p u l a r d a n c e t h e m e s at the t i m e . So w h i l e the oral traditions of diss-
ing a n d signifying c a n b e easily l i n k e d , the vinyl traditions are of m o r e
obscure l i n e a g e . 30
E a r l y DJs scratched a n d s a m p l e d w h a t e v e r records
t h e y h a d , a n d listened specifically for f u n k y b r e a k s , or at least f u n n y
c o m b i n a t i o n s . T h e y f u s e d a m i s h m a s h m o s a i c of s a m p l e s that w o u l d
c o n f o u n d a n y b o d y trying to a s s e m b l e a s i m p l e ethnic g e n e a l o g y for the
birth a n d g r o w t h of r a p . 31

W h a t d e v e l o p e d i n rap in the 1970s a n d 1980s h a s b e e n c o m p a r e d

to w h a t h a p p e n e d to jazz in the 1940s a n d 1950s, w h e n D i z z y Gillespie
a n d Charlie Parker took it h i g h e r b y cutting u p a n d i m p r o v i s i n g o n top
of stale s t a n d a r d s like " I G o t R h y t h m " a n d " H o w H i g h the M o o n . " 3 2
If
w e c o u l d trace the tradition of b o r r o w i n g other p e o p l e ' s m u s i c , m a k i n g
it o n e ' s o w n , a n d i m p r o v i s i n g o n top of it, b a c k t h r o u g h A f r i c a n A m e r -
ican m u s i c a l h i s t o r y to Africa, a simple thesis w o u l d e m e r g e : T h e rap on
s a m p l i n g w o u l d b e that A m e r i c a n l a w s d o n ' t deal w i t h African tradi-
tions. T h e history, as w e h a v e seen w i t h blues m u s i c , is n o t that sim-
ple. In Africa, m u s i c a n d p o e t r y are n o t s i m p l y c o n s i d e r e d c o m m u n i t y
property. S o m e cultural anthropologists h a v e c l a i m e d that authorship
a n d c o m p o s i t i o n h o l d little or n o v a l u e in A f r i c a n societies, b u t this is
an oversimplified a n d ethnocentric n o t i o n . 33

I n s t e a d , it is easier, a n d p e r h a p s m o r e a c c u r a t e , to trace this tradi-

tion b a c k a l o n g t w o lines: o n e t h r o u g h m i d - c e n t u r y A m e r i c a n r h y t h m
a n d b l u e s a n d j a z z , a n d t h e o t h e r t h r o u g h m o r e recent i m m i g r a n t in-
f l u e n c e s f r o m the C a r i b b e a n i s l a n d s . C a r i b b e a n i s l a n d e r s , s o m e w h a t
freer of t h e s p e c i a l social c o n s t r a i n t s that A m e r i c a n b l a c k s felt, h a d
the ability to b u i l d a n d control their o w n m u s i c industry. T h e y also
h a d t h e b e n e f i t of c h o o s i n g the b e s t of A m e r i c a n , British, a n d A f r i c a n
i n f l u e n c e s to b l e n d into their m u s i c . A n d in J a m a i c a , m o r e t h a n in
m o s t c u l t u r e s , the c o n c e p t of m u s i c as c o m m u n i t y p r o p e r t y is i m p o r -
tant to the d e v e l o p m e n t of c o m m e r c i a l l y v i a b l e art f o r m s . 3 4
Dick Heb-
dige, a m u s i c s c h o l a r w h o s p e c i a l i z e s i n h o w C a r i b b e a n m u s i c h a s
affected w o r l d m u s i c in g e n e r a l , c l a i m s that " v e r s i o n i n g , " the re-
p e a t e d b o r r o w i n g a n d r e c y c l i n g of a p o p u l a r s t a n d a r d , is t h e k e y to
n o t o n l y r e g g a e , b u t all A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n a n d C a r i b b e a n m u s i c . H e b -
d i g e w r i t e s that o f t e n w h e n a r e g g a e r e c o r d is r e l e a s e d , h u n d r e d s of
dif-ferent v e r s i o n s of the s a m e r h y t h m or m e l o d y w i l l b e r e l e a s e d in
 136 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

the s u b s e q u e n t w e e k s . E v e r y n e w v e r s i o n w i l l s l i g h t l y m o d i f y the
original t u n e . 35

In the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , s k a a n d reggae p r o d u c e r s i n v e n t e d a n e w w a y to
version. T h e y b e g a n f a d i n g instrumental tracks in a n d out, p l a y i n g b a s s
off of vocals, s l o w i n g d o w n the r h y t h m , a n d t h r o w i n g in e c h o e s . T h e y
called this process " d u b b i n g . " It i n v o l v e d different r a w materials than
s a m p l i n g , b u t the s a m e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s . H e b d i g e w r i t e s that w h i l e
36

the studio e n v i r o n m e n t s p a w n e d d u b b i n g , the d a n c e hall scene incu-

b a t e d the vocal precursor to A m e r i c a n rap: the D J t a l k - o v e r . 37

T h e r e is a recent a n d clear link b e t w e e n N e w York h i p - h o p in the

1970s a n d J a m a i c a n " v e r s i o n i n g " in the 1960s. H i s n a m e is K o o l H e r e . 38

K o o l Here c a m e to the B r o n x f r o m J a m a i c a in 1967. O n his n a t i v e island,

h e h a d h e a r d " t a l k - o v e r " DJs a n d k n e w the scat-singing techniques of
s o m e of the s k a a n d reggae artists w h o h a d c h u r n e d out international
hits during the 1 9 6 0 s . 39
H e b d i g e explains h o w K o o l Here i m p o r t e d al-
m o s t all the n e c e s s a r y p r e c u r s o r s to m o d e r n rap m u s i c : B y 1973 Here
o w n e d the loudest a n d m o s t p o w e r f u l s o u n d s y s t e m in his n e i g h b o r -
h o o d . But w h e n h e d e e j a y e d at h o u s e parties Here f o u n d that the N e w
York A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n c r o w d w o u l d n o t d a n c e to reggae or other
C a r i b b e a n b e a t s . So Here b e g a n talking o v e r the Latin-tinged f u n k that
h e l d b r o a d , m u l t i e t h n i c a p p e a l i n the B r o n x . Gradually, h e d e v e l o p e d a
p o p u l a r a n d recognizable style. Here b e g a n b u y i n g records for the in-
strumental b r e a k s rather than for the w h o l e t r a c k . 40
Here b e c a m e o n e of
the first—if n o t the first—to discover that h e c o u l d s a m p l e the hearts
out of a pile of vinyl a n d give a r o o m full of p e o p l e p l e n t y to t a s t e . 41

Before too long, o t h e r N e w York DJs p i c k e d u p o n the p o p u l a r i t y of

H e r e ' s style. T h e first c h a n g e s t h e y m a d e w e r e to incorporate classic
r h y t h m a n d blues riffs a n d b r e a k s , a d d i n g the thrill of recognition to the
groove, " s c r a t c h i n g " a record to create a n e w r h y t h m track, a n d rapping
in a n A m e r i c a n dialect full of street s l a n g . 42
To c o m p l e m e n t the linkage
of A m e r i c a n s a m p l i n g w i t h C a r i b b e a n v e r s i o n i n g , there h a v e b e e n sug-
gestions that the v o c a l styles of A m e r i c a n rap m a y h a v e thicker Carib-
b e a n roots than previously thought. M u s i c critic Daisarm McLarte ar-
gues that r a p ' s strongest a n d m o s t o b v i o u s m u s i c a l a n d ideological
links are n o t to Africa b u t to the West Indies a n d the A f r o - C a r i b b e a n
styles of c a l y p s o a n d reggae. C a l y p s o lyrical style, for instance, over-
flows w i t h double entendres, verbal duels, a n d playful boasts. T h e s e
t h e m e s are c o m m o n in A m e r i c a n rap l y r i c s . 43

In A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c , v e r s i o n i n g or b o r r o w i n g is n o t u n -
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 137

heard of, a l t h o u g h it h a s traditionally b e e n w h i t e artists v e r s i o n i n g the

w o r k of b l a c k artists. T h e B e a c h B o y s lifted riffs f r o m C h u c k B e r r y that
d o m i n a t e d their s o n g s to the s a m e extent that Van H a l e n ' s " J a m i e ' s
C r y i n g " guitar riff stands a l o n e as the b a c k i n g track to Tone L o c ' s " W i l d
Thing." 4 4
T h e traditional N e w O r l e a n s r h y t h m a n d blues s o n g " S t a g g e r
L e e " ( w h i c h in its original f o r m is called " S t a c k - o - L e e " ) , is o n e A m e r i -
can s o n g that h a s b e e n v e r s i o n e d so m a n y times that it h a s served as al-
m o s t a s i g n a t u r e s o n g for N e w O r l e a n s m u s i c . Stagger w a s a b a d m a n ,
into g a m b l i n g , drinking, a n d fighting. His tales of g l u t t o n y a n d b a d
l u c k h a v e taken on a l m o s t as m a n y plots as voices. It c a n still b e h e a r d
covered in live m u s i c clubs large a n d small all over the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 45

S a m p l i n g , as o p p o s e d to s i m p l y imitating, b e c a m e a big issue in

A m e r i c a n m u s i c after digital t e c h n o l o g y b e c a m e c h e a p a n d easily avail-
able a n d its p r o d u c t s b e c a m e i m m e n s e l y p o p u l a r . 46
Digital s a m p l i n g is
a p r o c e s s b y w h i c h s o u n d s are c o n v e r t e d into b i n a r y units r e a d a b l e b y
a c o m p u t e r . A digital converter m e a s u r e s the tone a n d intensity of a
s o u n d a n d assigns it a c o r r e s p o n d i n g v o l t a g e . T h e digital c o d e is then
stored in a c o m p u t e r m e m o r y b a n k , or a tape or disc, a n d c a n b e re-
trieved a n d m a n i p u l a t e d electronically. 47

But w h y do r a p artists s a m p l e in the first place? W h a t m e a n i n g s are

t h e y i m p a r t i n g ? S o m e s o n g s g r a b bits a n d pieces of different p o p cul-
ture s i g n p o s t s , w h i l e others, s u c h as Tone L o c ' s " W i l d T h i n g " or H a m -
m e r ' s " U C a n ' t Touch T h i s , " w h i c h lays lyrics u p o n a b a c k i n g track
m a d e u p a l m o s t entirely of Rick J a m e s ' s " S u p e r F r e a k " instrumentals,
h a r d l y s t a n d a l o n e as s o n g s , b u t are truly " v e r s i o n s " of s o m e o n e else's
hits. 48
S o m e t i m e s , as w i t h S c h o o l l y D ' s s a m p l i n g of L e d Z e p p e l i n ' s
" K a s h m i r " for his s o n g " S i g n i f y i n g R a p p e r , " it c a n b e a political a c t — a
w a y of crossing the s y s t e m , c h a l l e n g i n g expectations, or confronting
the status q u o . O f t e n , the choice of the s a m p l e is an e x p r e s s i o n of a p -
preciation, debt, or influence. O t h e r times it's just a m a t t e r of h a v i n g
s o m e f u n or s e a r c h i n g for the right a m b i e n t s o u n d , tone, or feel. Cer-
tainly Rick J a m e s ' s f u n k y hits of the late 1970s a n d early 1980s influ-
enced n o t o n l y artists of the 1990s b u t their a u d i e n c e s . S a m p l i n g is a
w a y a n artist declares, " H e y , I dug this, t o o . " It h e l p s f o r m a direct con-
nection w i t h listeners, the s a m e w a y a m o v i e m a k e r m i g h t t h r o w in a
M o t o w n hit in a s o u n d t r a c k . B y the early 1990s, at least 180 recordings
b y m o r e t h a n 120 artists c o n t a i n e d s a m p l e s b y s o m e of f u n k g o d f a t h e r
G e o r g e Clinton's P - F u n k school, w h i c h i n c l u d e d 1970s b a n d s F u n k a -
delic, P a r l i a m e n t , a n d v a r i o u s o t h e r b a n d s h e a d e d b y C l i n t o n o r his
 138 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

bassist, B o o t s y C o l l i n s . 49
It's t o u g h to s a y w h e t h e r a n e w s o n g that re-
lies a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y o n s o m e older hit riffs c a n a c h i e v e financial suc-
cess o n its o w n m e r i t s . T w o of the best-selling rap hits are entirely de-
p e n d e n t on m a s s i v e l y d a n c e a b l e o l d e r s o n g s a n d are, sadly, lyrically
limited. T h e y are H a m m e r ' s " U C a n ' t Touch T h i s " a n d Vanilla Ice's
1990 single " I c e Ice B a b y , " w h i c h w a s a stiff a n d m e a n i n g l e s s rap over
the b a c k i n g track to the 1982 D a v i d B o w i e - Q u e e n hit " U n d e r Pres-
sure." 50
Village Voice m u s i c critic Greg Tate e x p l a i n e d the aesthetic v a l u e
of sampling: " M u s i c b e l o n g s to the p e o p l e , a n d s a m p l i n g isn't a c o p y -
cat act b u t a f o r m of r e a n i m a t i o n . S a m p l i n g in h i p - h o p is the digitized
v e r s i o n of h i p - h o p D J i n g , a n archival project a n d a n art f o r m u n t o itself.
H i p - h o p is ancestor w o r s h i p . " 5 1

S a m p l i n g h e l p s forge a " d i s c u r s i v e c o m m u n i t y " a m o n g m u s i c fans.

R a p m u s i c first m a d e that c o n n e c t i o n to w h i t e a u d i e n c e s — a n d thus ex-
p a n d e d the discursive c o m m u n i t y e x p o n e n t i a l l y — i n 1986, w h e n R u n
D M C released its v e r s i o n of the 1977 A e r o s m i t h song, " W a l k This
Way." 52
Within the African A m e r i c a n discursive c o m m u n i t y , rap s o n g s
serve, in historian G e o r g e Lipsitz's w o r d s , as "repositories of social
memory." 5 3
Lipsitz particularly credits the m a t r i x of cultural signs high-
lighted b y s a m p l i n g a n d realistic lyrics that d o c u m e n t the struggles of
inner-city life. S a m p l i n g can b e transgressive or appreciative, h u m o r -
ous o r serious. It g i v e s a song another level of m e a n i n g , a n o t h e r p l a n e
of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a m o n g the artist, p r e v i o u s artists, a n d the a u d i e n c e .
Digital s a m p l i n g also h a d a p o w e r f u l d e m o c r a t i z i n g effect on
A m e r i c a n p o p u l a r m u s i c . All a y o u n g c o m p o s e r n e e d e d w a s a thick
stack of vinyl a l b u m s , a $2,000 sampler, a m i c r o p h o n e , a n d a tape deck,
a n d s h e c o u l d m a k e fresh a n d p o w e r f u l m u s i c . S h e c o u l d m a k e p e o p l e
d a n c e , laugh, a n d sing along. S h e m i g h t , u n d e r the right conditions, be
able to m a k e m o n e y from the practice. A s critic J o h n L e l a n d w r o t e in
Spin: " T h e digital s a m p l i n g device h a s c h a n g e d n o t o n l y the s o u n d of
p o p m u s i c , but also the mythology. It h a s d o n e w h a t p u n k r o c k threat-
ened to do: m a d e e v e r y b o d y into a potential m u s i c i a n , b r i d g e d the gap
between performer and audience." 54

Clearly, s a m p l i n g as a n A m e r i c a n expression w a s raised in the

B r o n x , b u t w a s p r o b a b l y b o r n in the C a r i b b e a n . Its aesthetic a p p e a l is
d e e p l y e m b e d d e d in African A m e r i c a n a n d A f r o - C a r i b b e a n culture, if
not for m o s t of this half century, then certainly over the last twenty-five
years. M o r e significantly, for a w h i l e in the late 1980s, it l o o k e d as if
transgressive s a m p l i n g w a s n o t going to go away. It m a d e too m u c h
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 139

m o n e y a n d w a s too i m p o r t a n t to the m e a n i n g a n d m e s s a g e of r a p . D u r -
ing the first d e c a d e of rap, the legal questions s u r r o u n d i n g s a m p l i n g
g r e w m o r e t r o u b l e s o m e for b o t h artists a n d labels as rap b e c a m e m o r e
p o p u l a r a n d the e c o n o m i c stakes rose. S a m p l i n g s e e m e d to u n d e r m i n e
the v e r y definitions of " w o r k , " " a u t h o r , " a n d " o r i g i n a l " — t e r m s on
w h i c h c o p y r i g h t l a w rests. C o n s i d e r a s o n g w i t h a b a c k i n g m u s i c a l
track filled w i t h bits a n d pieces of other w o r k s , o t h e r s ' applications of
skill, labor, a n d j u d g m e n t . T h e r e ' s a Keith Richards guitar riff h e r e and
there. W e h e a r B o o t s y Collins's t h u m b - p i c k e d a n d h a n d - s l a p p e d bass
filling in the b o t t o m . T h e r h y t h m is kept constant t h r o u g h a n electronic
d r u m m a c h i n e . We h e a r the occasional m o a n of a Staple S i n g e r or a
shout of J a m e s B r o w n . T h e n e w w o r k m a y exist as a n individual w o r k
p e r se. T h e new, c o m p o s i t e , m o s a i c w o r k is a s s e m b l e d f r o m these s a m -
ples t h r o u g h a n i n d e p e n d e n t application of skill, labor, a n d j u d g m e n t .
Is e a c h of t h e s e s a m p l e s a c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t ? If the artist asks for
p e r m i s s i o n to s a m p l e the K e i t h R i c h a r d s r i f f — w h i c h m i g h t b e a n ex-
pression of C h u c k B e r r y ' s or H o u n d o g T a y l o r ' s i d e a — d o e s s h e a d m i t
that p e r m i s s i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s o u g h t for the b a s s line? H o w a b o u t
the m o a n s a n d s h o u t s , w h i c h c o u l d easily b e c o n s i d e r e d " s i g n a t u r e
s o u n d s " a n d t h u s m a r k e t a b l e qualities? If the artist, the a s s e m b l e r of the
m o s a i c , h a d hired studio m u s i c i a n s to imitate these distinctive s o u n d s ,
instead of splicing digital grafts o n t o a n e w tape, w o u l d s h e b e lifting
u n p r o t e c t e d " i d e a s , " instead of tangible p r o d u c t s of actual skill, labor,
a n d j u d g m e n t ? If a p e r s o n recorded a n entire song b a s e d u p o n the
m u s i c to " T h e B o o g i e - W o o g i e B u g l e B o y of C o m p a n y B , " a n d a court
f o u n d the u s e of the score to b e o u t s i d e the d o m a i n of fair use, then the
d e f e n d a n t w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to p a y the a p p r o p r i a t e p e n a l t y for violat-
ing the letter a n d spirit of the c o p y r i g h t law. But w h a t if the d e f e n d a n t
u s e d o n l y the n o t e s a n d w o r d s of the " B o o g i e - W o o g i e " portion of the
refrain, a n d r e p e a t e d t h e m t h r o u g h o u t a s o n g that h a d other creative el-
e m e n t s in it? H a s the right to the original " w o r k " b e e n infringed?
Courts h a v e v a r i e d in their rulings of h o w m u c h o n e m a y take before a
" w o r k " h a s b e e n violated. Legal scholars agree there is n o clear g u i d e -
line, a n d the text of the l a w s i m p l y does not deal w i t h the i s s u e . 55
After
e x a m i n i n g this confusion, D a v i d Sanjek, director of the Broadcast
M u s i c , Inc., archives, c o n c l u d e d that the rise of digital s a m p l i n g h a d
r e m o v e d w h a t e v e r claim m u s i c i a n s h a d to " a n a u r a of a u t o n o m y and
authenticity." Sanjek w r o t e : " I f a n y o n e w i t h an available library of re-
cordings, a grasp of recorded material history, a n d talent for ingenious
 140 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

collage c a n call t h e m s e l v e s a creator of m u s i c , is it the case that the

process a n d the p r o d u c t n o l o n g e r possess the m e a n i n g o n c e assigned
to t h e m ? " 5 6

In m a n y sectors of the law, w e w o u l d expect courts to clarify issues

like these. Ideally, federal courts w o u l d s l o w l y sift t h r o u g h the c o m p e t -
ing a r g u m e n t s a n d s e e k a b a l a n c e that w o u l d e n s u r e f r e e d o m for the
e m e r g i n g artists w h i l e protecting the risks a n d i n v e s t m e n t s of estab-
lished o n e s . But f r o m 1978 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 1 , the courts w e r e silent o n m o s t
of these issues.

T H E ILLIN' EFFECT: H O W C O P Y R I G H T BUM-RUSHED RAP

All w a s n o t w e l l for the creative p r o c e s s before courts w e i g h e d in on

s a m p l i n g issues. A n a r c h y w a s n o t p a r a d i s e . Artists also suffered b e -
cause of the c o n f u s i o n the practice c a u s e d in the record b u s i n e s s . R e c -
ord c o m p a n i e s w e r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y risk averse. B e c a u s e s a m p l i n g
raised s o m a n y questions, labels p u s h e d their m o r e successful acts to
get p e r m i s s i o n for s a m p l e s before releasing a record. T h e p r o b l e m w a s
that n o o n e k n e w w h a t to c h a r g e for a t h r e e - s e c o n d s a m p l e . A s a 1992
n o t e in the Harvard Law Review stated: " C o n s e q u e n t l y , the m u s i c i n d u s -
try h a s r e s p o n d e d w i t h an a d - h o c , n e g o t i a t e d licensing a p p r o a c h to
valuing m u s i c s a m p l e s . " 5 7
A s i n d u s t r y leaders a n d l a w y e r s , a n d older
songwriters, g r e w m o r e a w a r e of the p r e v a l e n c e of s a m p l i n g a n d of the
potential m o n e t a r y gain f r o m challenging it, artists b e c a m e m o r e con-
cerned w i t h the potential costs of s a m p l i n g . This certainly retarded the
creative p r o c e s s . Artists c h o s e to s a m p l e l e s s - w e l l - k n o w n w o r k s , w o r k s
p u b l i s h e d or p r o d u c e d b y their o w n c o m p a n i e s a n d labels, or w o r k s
w i t h a lower licensing price. W h e n the Beastie B o y s w a n t e d to s a m p l e
the Beatles song " I ' m D o w n , " M i c h a e l J a c k s o n i n f o r m e d t h e m that h e
o w n e d the rights to the s o n g a n d denied t h e m p e r m i s s i o n to use it. T h e
Beastie B o y s e v e n t u a l l y o p t e d against u s i n g that s o n g . 58

Until 1 9 9 1 , n o o n e in the rap or licensing b u s i n e s s e s k n e w w h a t the

guidelines for digital s a m p l i n g w e r e . This m e a n s that on a n y given day,
an artist m a y h a v e b e e n r i p p e d off b y a n o v e r p r i c e d licensing fee, o r a
p u b l i s h i n g c o m p a n y m a y h a v e g o t t e n b u r n e d b y charging too little for
a s a m p l e that h e l p e d p r o d u c e a top h i t . 59
T h a t ' s w h y several legal schol-
ars in the late 1980s a n d early 1990s tried to f o r m u l a t e licensing s y s t e m s
b a s e d o n the use, length, a n d t y p e of s a m p l e . Still, the i n d u s t r y w a s
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 141

waiting for a court to w e i g h in so there c o u l d b e s o m e predictability and

stability in the s y s t e m . 60

Several s a m p l i n g cases w e r e settled out of court before D e c e m b e r

of 1991, p o s t p o n i n g the inevitable g u i d a n c e a judicial decision w o u l d
bring. N o n e t h e l e s s , the publicity s u r r o u n d i n g these cases m a d e older
artists h u n g r y to cash in o n the potential s a m p l i n g licensing m a r k e t . A
song that h a d ceased b r i n g i n g in royalties d e c a d e s a g o c o u l d s u d d e n l y
yield a b i g check. In 1991 M a r k V o l m a n a n d H o w a r d K a y l a n of the
1960s p o p g r o u p the Turtles s u e d the rap trio D e La S o u l for u s i n g a
t w e l v e - s e c o n d piece of the Turtles' s o n g " Y o u S h o w e d M e " in the 1989
rap track "Transmitting L i v e f r o m M a r s . " V o l m a n a n d K a y l a n s u e d for
$2.5 million, b u t r e a c h e d an out-of-court settlement for $1.7 million. D e
La Soul p a i d $141,666.67 per s e c o n d to the Turtles for a sliver of a long-
forgotten s o n g . 61

T h e n in D e c e m b e r 1991 a federal j u d g e issued a terse sixteen-hun-

d r e d - w o r d ruling that all b u t shut d o w n the practice of u n a u t h o r i z e d
s a m p l i n g in rap m u s i c . In A u g u s t of 1991, Warner Brothers R e c o r d s dis-
tributed a n a l b u m released b y a small record label called C o l d Chillin'
Records. T h e artist w a s a y o u n g N e w J e r s e y rapper n a m e d Biz M a r k i e .
T h e a l b u m w a s called I Need a Haircut. T h e r e w a s n o t h i n g particular,
u n i q u e , or special a b o u t the a l b u m . It w a s p r e t t y s u b s t a n d a r d fare for
rap a l b u m s from the late 1980s a n d early 1990s. T h e r h y m e s w e r e sim-
ple. T h e subject m a t t e r w a s juvenile. T h e p r o d u c t i o n w a s pedestrian.
T h e choice of s a m p l e s w a s neither f u n n y nor insightful. 1 Need a Haircut
m i g h t h a v e b e e n a trivial footnote i n rap history b u t for the second-to-
last cut on the album: " A l o n e A g a i n . " F o r that s o n g , Biz M a r k i e took the
first eight b a r s of the n u m b e r one single of 1972, Gilbert O ' S u l l i v a n ' s
" A l o n e A g a i n ( N a t u r a l l y ) . " M a r k i e u s e d o n l y a b o u t t w e n t y s e c o n d s of
p i a n o chords from the original s o n g , w h i c h h e l o o p e d c o n t i n u a l l y to
construct the m u s i c a l b a c k g r o u n d of the song. O ' S u l l i v a n ' s s o n g w a s a
s a p p y ballad a b o u t f a m i l y loss. M a r k i e ' s song w a s a b o u t h o w the rap-
p e r received n o respect as a p e r f o r m e r b a c k w h e n h e p l a y e d in c o m b o s
with old friends, but since h e h a d b e c o m e a solo p e r f o r m e r his career
h a d b e e n satisfying. M a r k i e ' s use of O ' S u l l i v a n ' s s a m p l e did n o t di-
rectly p a r o d y it, b u t it w a s essential to setting the m i n o r - c h o r d m o o d of
M a r k i e ' s tale of d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d self-sufficiency. 62

So w h i l e Biz M a r k i e ' s s o n g did n o t " c u t o n " O ' S u l l i v a n ' s s o n g , or

revise O ' S u l l i v a n ' s s o n g in a w a y that w o u l d replace it in the market-
place or e v e n g e n e r a t e c o n f u s i o n for record b u y e r s , O ' S u l l i v a n p u r s u e d
 142 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

the case w i t h righteous indignation. O ' S u l l i v a n ' s attorney, J o d y P o p e ,

stated after the case e n d e d that O ' S u l l i v a n w o u l d not a l l o w his s o n g to
b e u s e d in a h u m o r o u s context, a n d w o u l d license it to b e u s e d o n l y in
its c o m p l e t e , original form. E v e n t h o u g h M a r k i e h a d r e q u e s t e d p e r m i s -
sion to u s e it, O ' S u l l i v a n failed to g r a n t p e r m i s s i o n b e c a u s e the use did
not m a i n t a i n either the integrity o r the original m e a n i n g of the song.
M a r k i e ' s attorneys l a u n c h e d t w o strategies for d e f e n s e , n e i t h e r partic-
ularly effective. T h e w e a k e r w a s that O ' S u l l i v a n h i m s e l f w a s not the
copyright holder, a n d thus c o u l d n o t s e e k relief f r o m the court. T h e fact
that M a r k i e ' s l a w y e r s h a d m a i l e d a tape of the s o n g to O ' S u l l i v a n ask-
i n g for p e r m i s s i o n (they received n o reply) p e r s u a d e d the j u d g e that it
w a s clear to e v e r y o n e that O ' S u l l i v a n w a s the h o l d e r of the original
copyright. T h e other defense w a s that e v e r y b o d y in the m u s i c industry
w a s doing it. This did n o t score p o i n t s w i t h either the j u d g e or others in
the m u s i c industry. Biz M a r k i e ' s l a w y e r s did n o t claim that s a m p l i n g in
this context w a s fair u s e . T h e y c o u l d h a v e a r g u e d that o n l y a s m a l l sec-
tion of O ' S u l l i v a n ' s s o n g c o n t r i b u t e d to a v a s t l y different c o m p o s i t i o n
that did n o t c o m p e t e w i t h the original song in the m a r k e t p l a c e . This fair
u s e d e f e n s e p r o b a b l y w o u l d n o t h a v e s w a y e d the j u d g e either. But they
d i d n ' t e v e n a t t e m p t to m o u n t o n e . 6 3

O ' S u l l i v a n r e q u e s t e d a n injunction against further sale of the song

a n d a l b u m . U.S. district j u d g e K e v i n T h o m a s D u f f y g l a d l y granted
O ' S u l l i v a n his w i s h . D u f f y w r o t e in terms l o a d e d w i t h hints of m o r a l
rights, n a t u r a l rights, a n d p r o p e r t y talk:

"Thou shalt not steal" has been an admonition followed since the
dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, in the modern world of business
this admonition is not always followed. Indeed, the defendants in this
action for copyright infringement would have this court believe that
stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their
conduct here should be excused. The conduct of the defendants
herein, however, violates not only the Seventh Commandment, but
also the copyright laws of this country.. . .

. . . From all of the evidence produced in the hearing, it is clear that the
defendants knew that they were violating the plaintiff's rights as well
as the rights of others. Their only aim was to sell thousands upon thou-
sands of records. This callous disregard for the law and for the rights
of others requires not only the preliminary injunction sought by the
plaintiff but also sterner measures. 64
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 143

D u f f y c o n c l u d e d b y referring the case to a U.S. district a t t o r n e y to con-

sider criminal prosecution. W h a t D u f f y did n o t w r i t e is as i m p o r t a n t as
w h a t h e did w r i t e . D u f f y ' s ruling did not articulate a n y n u a n c e d stan-
dard b y w h i c h a song c o u l d b e s a m p l e d , m a n i p u l a t e d , or revised with-
out permission. It left n o " w i g g l e r o o m " for fair use. It did not consider
w h e t h e r the n e w u s e affected the m a r k e t of the original s o n g in a n y
way. It d i d n o t try to clarify h o w long a s a m p l e m u s t b e to qualify as an
infringement. T h e fact that the s a m p l e in question w a s a m e r e t w e n t y
s e c o n d s did not b o d e w e l l for fair use. D u f f y ' s brevity clarified these is-
sues b y i g n o r i n g t h e m : " h o w m u c h ? " a n d " f o r w h a t p u r p o s e ? " n e e d
not e v e n b e asked after D u f f y ' s ruling. It w a s safe to a s s u m e that a n y
s a m p l e of a n y duration u s e d for a n y p u r p o s e m u s t b e cleared.
S o o n after D u f f y ' s ruling, M a r k i e ' s a t t o r n e y s realized t h e y w o u l d
n o t h a v e m u c h c h a n c e to w i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e Duffy. T h e y s e t t l e d . T h e
r e c o r d c o m p a n y a g r e e d to r e m o v e t h e o f f e n d i n g s o n g f r o m s u b s e -
q u e n t p r i n t i n g s of t h e a l b u m , a n d O ' S u l l i v a n r e c e i v e d m o n e t a r y c o m -
p e n s a t i o n . R e a c t i o n to D u f f y ' s ruling w a s also e x t r e m e . O n e of O ' S u l -
l i v a n ' s l a w y e r s d e c l a r e d a n e n d to s a m p l i n g : " S a m p l i n g is a e u p h e -
m i s m that w a s d e v e l o p e d b y t h e m u s i c i n d u s t r y to m a s k w h a t is
o b v i o u s l y thievery. This r e p r e s e n t s t h e first j u d i c i a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t
that this p r a c t i c e is i n fact t h e f t . " M a r k V o l m a n of t h e Turtles said,
" S a m p l i n g is j u s t a l o n g e r t e r m for theft. A n y b o d y w h o c a n h o n e s t l y
s a y s a m p l i n g is s o m e sort of c r e a t i v i t y h a s n e v e r d o n e a n y t h i n g cre-
a t i v e . " O n the o t h e r s i d e , D a n C h a m a s , a n e x e c u t i v e w i t h the rap
label D e f A m e r i c a n R e c o r d s , w a r n e d that D u f f y ' s r u l i n g w o u l d " k i l l
hip-hop music and culture."
W h i l e C h a m a s ' s fears w e r e e x a g g e r a t e d , t h e y w e r e n o t u n f o u n d e d .
T h e case did n o t kill the m u s i c . It just c h a n g e d it b r o a d l y a n d deeply.
R a p m u s i c since 1991 has b e e n m a r k e d b y a severe decrease in the
a m o u n t of s a m p l i n g . M a n y groups record b a c k g r o u n d m u s i c a n d then
filter it d u r i n g p r o d u c t i o n s o it s o u n d s as if it h a s b e e n s a m p l e d . O t h e r
g r o u p s — t h e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d — p a y for a n d extensively credit all the
sources of their s a m p l e s . M a n y established s o n g w r i t e r s — i n c l u d i n g L e d
Z e p p e l i n — o f t e n refuse requests for s a m p l e s . O t h e r s d e n y s a m p l i n g re-
quests if the n e w song tackles controversial subject m a t t e r like sex,
d r u g s , or violence. W h a t s a m p l i n g d i d occur in the late 1990s w a s n o n -
trans gressive, n o n t h r e a t e n i n g , a n d too often c l u m s y a n d o b v i o u s . T h e
signifying r a p p e r h a d lost his v o i c e . T h e 1991 ruling r e m o v e d f r o m rap
m u s i c a w h o l e level of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d m e a n i n g that o n c e p l a y e d a
 144 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

part in the a u d i e n c e ' s reception to it. T h e Biz M a r k i e case " s t o l e the

s o u l " from r a p m u s i c . 65

T h e death of tricky, playful, transgressive s a m p l i n g occurred b e -

cause courts a n d the i n d u s t r y m i s a p p l i e d stale, blunt, e t h n o c e n t r i c , a n d
simplistic standards to fresh n e w m e t h o d s of expression. T h e trend
c o u l d h a v e g o n e the other way. Courts a n d the m u s i c i n d u s t r y could
h a v e a l l o w e d for limited use of u n a u t h o r i z e d s a m p l e s if t h e y h a d con-
sidered taking several tenets of fair use a n d free s p e e c h s e r i o u s l y — e s -
pecially the q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r the n e w e r w o r k detracts from the m a r -
ket of the original. In fact, as has b e e n s h o w n repeatedly, s a m p l i n g often
revives a m a r k e t for a n all b u t forgotten s o n g or artist. T h e best e x a m -
ple is the revival of A e r o s m i t h since R u n D M C ' s v e r s i o n of " W a l k This
W a y " r e m i n d e d y o u n g listeners of the p o w e r of the original song. A e r o -
smith, a l m o s t forgotten after a string of hits in the 1970s, collaborated
on that project. But e v e n a n u n a u t h o r i z e d use of the original song
w o u l d h a v e revived interest in A e r o s m i t h , o n e of the m o s t successful
b a n d s of b o t h the 1970s a n d the 1990s.
B e y o n d fair use, courts a n d the record i n d u s t r y c o u l d h a v e consid-
ered actually e m p l o y i n g the idea-expression d i c h o t o m y in a n e w way.
M u s i c c o p y r i g h t h a s traditionally protected melody, s o m e t i m e s h a r -
m o n y , a l m o s t n e v e r r h y t h m . R h y t h m has b e e n c o n s i d e r e d either too
c o m m o n o r too u n i m p o r t a n t to w a r r a n t p r o t e c t i o n . 66
B u t w h a t actually
h a p p e n s w h e n a rap p r o d u c e r injects a s a m p l e into a n e w m e d i u m is
this: a n expression of m e l o d y b e c o m e s a b u i l d i n g b l o c k of r h y t h m . T h e
claim that s a m p l e s cease transmitting their original m e a n i n g s — c e a s e
operating as expressions o n c e t h e y are taken out of c o n t e x t — i s best ex-
pressed b y C h u c k D of Public E n e m y , w h o sang:

Mail from the courts and jail

Claim I stole the beats that I rail
Look at how I'm living like
And they're gonna check the mike, right? Sike
Look how I'm livin' now, lower than low
What a sucker know
I found this mineral that I call a beat
I paid zero
I packed my load 'cause it's better than gold
People don't ask the price but it's sold
They say I sample but they should
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 145

Sample this, my pit bull

We ain't goin'for this
They say I stole this
Can I get a witness? 67

For C h u c k D , a s a m p l e is a " m i n e r a l . " It is r a w material for a n e w

composition. S a m p l i n g is a transformation: u s i n g a n expression as an
idea; using w h a t w a s o n c e m e l o d y as a beat, a n e l e m e n t of r h y t h m .
S a m p l i n g is not theft. It's recycling. If w e define a n expression b y w h a t
it d o e s , instead of w h a t it did, it n o longer c o u n t s as a n expression (or
that particular expression) in the n e w context. T h e e x p r e s s i o n does n o t
do the s a m e w o r k in its n e w role. C o n t e x t m a t t e r s to m e a n i n g . A n old
expression is n o longer the s a m e expression, a n d n o t e v e n the s a m e
idea, if the context c h a n g e s radically.
T h e r e c o u l d b e r o o m for u n a u t h o r i z e d s a m p l i n g w i t h i n A m e r i c a n
copyright law. It c o u l d a n d s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d fair u s e . Digital s a m -
ples are m o r e often t h a n n o t small p o r t i o n s of s o n g s . T h e s e portions are
b e i n g u s e d in c o m p l e t e l y different w a y s in the n e w s o n g s . B e c a u s e they
are n o t w o r k i n g in the s a m e w a y as in the original s o n g , t h e y are inher-
ently different from their sources. B u t m o s t importantly, s a m p l e s a d d
value. T h e y are p i e c e s of l a n g u a g e that g e n e r a t e n e w m e a n i n g s in their
n e w contexts. T h e n e w m e a n i n g s are clear a n d distinct from their orig-
inal m e a n i n g s . A n e w s o n g that s a m p l e s a n old s o n g does n o t replace
the old s o n g in the m a r k e t p l a c e . O f t e n , it does the opposite. D e s p i t e all
the p a n i c digital s a m p l i n g g e n e r a t e d a m o n g legal experts in the late
1980s, s a m p l i n g does n o t threaten the f o u n d a t i o n of the law. In fact, if
copyright l a w is to c o n f o r m to its constitutional charge, to " p r o m o t e the
progress of science a n d useful a r t s , " it s h o u l d allow transgressive and
satirical s a m p l i n g w i t h o u t h a v i n g to clear p e r m i s s i o n from original
copyright o w n e r s . A looser s y s t e m — a n d a b r o a d e r definition of fair
u s e — w o u l d e n c o u r a g e creativity. A tightly regulated s y s t e m does noth-
ing but s q u e e z e n e w coins out of old m u s i c a n d intimidate e m e r g i n g
artists.

A S F U N N Y A S T H E Y W A N N A BE

T h e r e is social v a l u e in a l l o w i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i v e uses of c o p y r i g h t e d
m u s i c w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n . T h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t in 1994 articulated
 146 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

this p r i n c i p l e in a l a n d m a r k case that i n v o l v e d rap m u s i c . But it w a s n o t

a case a b o u t s a m p l i n g per se. It w a s the case that m a d e A m e r i c a safe for
parody.
D e s p i t e its brief tenure on the m u s i c charts, n o g r o u p in the history
of rap h a s b e e n as controversial as the 2 Live Crew. A B r o w a r d C o u n t y
sheriff p r o s e c u t e d a record store o w n e r for selling the g r o u p ' s 1990
a l b u m As Nasty As They Want to Be, w h i c h relied o n sexist a n d explicit
lyrics a n d a c o m p l e x m o n t a g e of digital s a m p l e s . Scholars a n d m u s i c o l -
ogists lined u p b o t h for a n d against the g r o u p a n d its leader, L u t h e r
C a m p b e l l . Within a year, C a m p b e l l h a d recast h i m s e l f f r o m n a s t y r a p -
p e r a n d talented p r o d u c e r to a hero for the First A m e n d m e n t . But it w a s
2 L i v e C r e w ' s " n i c e " v e r s i o n of the a l b u m , As Clean As They Want to Be
that b r o u g h t the g r o u p to the U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t . It c o n t a i n e d a cut en-
titled " P r e t t y W o m a n " that relied h e a v i l y o n the m e l o d y a n d guitar riff
of R o y O r b i s o n ' s 1964 hit " O h , Pretty W o m a n . " O r b i s o n ' s p u b l i s h i n g
company, A c u f f - R o s e M u s i c , Inc., h a d denied 2 L i v e C r e w p e r m i s s i o n
to p a r o d y the song. C a m p b e l l decided to do it anyway, a n d relied o n a
fair u s e defense w h e n the lawsuit c a m e . T h e U.S. district court granted
a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t in favor of 2 L i v e Crew, ruling that the n e w song
w a s a p a r o d y of the original a n d that it w a s fair u s e of the material. B u t
the Sixth Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s reversed that decision, a r g u i n g that
2 L i v e C r e w t o o k too m u c h from the original a n d that it did so for bla-
tantly c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s . T h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled u n a n i -
m o u s l y that the a p p e a l s court h a d n o t b a l a n c e d all the factors that p l a y
into fair use. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t reversed the appeals court a n d ruled
in favor of C a m p b e l l a n d 2 Live C r e w . 68

Besides failing to u n d e r s t a n d the playfulness of p a r o d y i n g a c a n o n -

ical w h i t e p o p s o n g in a b l a c k rap context, the Sixth Circuit C o u r t of A p -
peals s h o w e d that it's not a l w a y s clear that a silly s o n g that s o u n d s like
an old s o n g is p a r o d i c . F o r a w o r k to qualify as a parody, it m u s t m a k e
s o m e critical s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the first w o r k . It's n o t g o o d e n o u g h to b e
just funny. T h e critical s t a t e m e n t m u s t b e directed at the s o u r c e text it-
self. If the s e c o n d w o r k does not clearly target the original w o r k , the sec-
ond w o r k m o r e likely operates as satire, not parody. For e x a m p l e , the
S e c o n d Circuit C o u r t of A p p e a l s ruled in 1981 that a s o n g f r o m the
o f f - B r o a d w a y erotic m u s i c a l Let My People Come called " C u r m i l i n g u s
C h a m p i o n of C o m p a n y C " w a s n o t a p a r o d y of the song " B o o g i e W o o -
gie B u g l e B o y of C o m p a n y B . " T h e court ruled that the infringing song
 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS 147

did not m a k e sufficient f u n of the original, b u t instead satirized sexual

m o r e s in general. T h e court a r g u e d that the s h o w ' s writers c o u l d h a v e
m a d e the s a m e satirical point b y either revising a s o n g in the public
d o m a i n or w r i t i n g a n original song. T h e r e w a s n o n e e d to revise the
"Bugle B o y " song. 69

Courts h a v e h a d a difficult t i m e carving out the fair use e x e m p t i o n

for parody. O n e of the first significant p a r o d y cases, Loew's Inc. v. Co-
lumbia Broadcasting System, h a d a stifling effect o n parody. T h e plaintiff
s t o p p e d c o m e d i a n J a c k B e n n y from televising a p a r o d y of the m o t i o n
picture Gaslight i n 1956. T h e court r u l e d that the p a r o d y c o u l d n o t b e a
form of criticism b e c a u s e of the d e f e n d a n t ' s strong profit m o t i v e . 70

Slowly, t h r o u g h o u t the 1960s a n d 1970s, courts b e g a n recognizing that

p a r o d y h a d cultural v a l u e . In 1 9 6 4 Mad Magazine p u b l i s h e d parodic
versions of the lyrics to s o m e s o n g s written b y Irving Berlin. T h e Sec-
o n d Circuit rose a b o v e the decision that h a d s t o p p e d J a c k B e n n y and
h e l d that Mad w a s n o t liable for i n f r i n g e m e n t . T h e court stated that " w e
believe that p a r o d y a n d satire are d e s e r v i n g of substantial f r e e d o m —
b o t h as e n t e r t a i n m e n t a n d as a f o r m of social a n d literary c r i t i c i s m . " 71

B y the late 1970s, televised p a r o d y w a s a staple of A m e r i c a n comedy. In

1978, the N B C s h o w Saturday Night Live ran a p a r o d y of the p r o - N e w
York jingle " I L o v e N e w Y o r k . " It w a s called " I L o v e S o d o m . " T h e
district court f o u n d that " I L o v e S o d o m " n e i t h e r c o m p e t e d w i t h n o r
h a r m e d the v a l u e of " I L o v e N e w Y o r k . " 72
M u s i c p a r o d i e s h a d also
proliferated d u r i n g the 1970s a n d 1980s w i t h the p o p u l a r i t y of Weird
Al Y a n k o v i c h a n d o t h e r s . In 1985, disk j o c k e y R i c k D e e s p r o d u c e d a
t w e n t y - n i n e - s e c o n d p a r o d y of the J o h n n y M a t h i s s o n g " W h e n S u n n y
Gets B l u e " called " W h e n S u n n y Sniffs G l u e . " T h e N i n t h Circuit C o u r t
of A p p e a l s ruled that the p a r o d y w o u l d not c o m p e t e in the m a r k e t with
the original. T h e court also c o n c l u d e d that a p a r o d y necessarily takes a
large p o r t i o n — p e r h a p s e v e n the h e a r t — o f the original, o r else fails in
its effort. M o s t significantly, the court ruled that " c o p y r i g h t l a w is n o t
d e s i g n e d to stifle c r i t i c s . " 73

Rick D e e s ' s success at defending his p a r o d y m a d e 2 Live C r e w ' s

eventual success a little m o r e likely. Relying o n recent p r e c e d e n t s such
as the D e e s case, Justice D a v i d Souter criticized the Sixth Circuit for bas-
ing its j u d g m e n t on a p r e s u m p t i o n that, since the p a r o d y w a s p r o d u c e d
for c o m m e r c i a l sale, it c o u l d n o t b e fair use. T h e Sixth Circuit h a d de-
cided o n the s a m e faulty basis on w h i c h the J a c k B e n n y case h a d b e e n
 148 HEP CATS A N D COPY CATS

d e c i d e d . Souter also c o n c l u d e d that a p a r o d y is unlikely to directly

c o m p e t e in the m a r k e t w i t h a n original w o r k b e c a u s e it serves a differ-
ent function—criticism. S o u t e r w r o t e ,

Suffice it to say now that parody has an obvious claim to transforma-

tive value, as Acuff-Rose itself does not deny. Like less ostensibly hu-
morous forms of criticism, it can provide social benefit, by shedding
light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one. Par-
ody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some
claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagi-
nation, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires
justification for the very act of borrowing.

S o u t e r c o n c l u d e d that 2 Live C r e w did target O r b i s o n ' s s o n g , not just

society at large. But Souter also w a r n e d that this case s h o u l d n o t b e read
as an o p e n license to revise o t h e r s ' w o r k s for m e r e l y satirical p u r p o s e s ,
a n d that e a c h case s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d individually. " T h e fact that
p a r o d y c a n claim l e g i t i m a c y for s o m e a p p r o p r i a t i o n does not, of course,
tell either parodist or j u d g e m u c h a b o u t w h e r e to d r a w the line. A c -
cordingly, parody, like a n y o t h e r use, h a s to w o r k its w a y t h r o u g h the
relevant factors, a n d b e j u d g e d case b y case, in light of the e n d s of the
copyright l a w . " 7 4

W h i l e S o u t e r w a s c a r e f u l n o t to s e n d too strong a m e s s a g e to p o -
tential p a r o d i s t s , his ruling set d o w n s o m e p r e t t y firm p r i n c i p l e s
u p o n w h i c h f u t u r e c a s e s m i g h t b e d e c i d e d . Significantly, S o u t e r de-
clared f r o m t h e h i g h e s t p e r c h that p a r o d y h a s social v a l u e , a n d that
c o u r t s m u s t t a k e s u c h fair u s e c l a i m s seriously. B u t the U . S . S u p r e m e
C o u r t h a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d a c a s e in w h i c h t r a n s g r e s s i v e or p a r o d i c
s a m p l i n g in r a p m u s i c w a s d e f e n d e d as fair u s e . B a s e d o n t h e princi-
ples S o u t e r o u t l i n e d , it's n o t likely that the c o u r t w o u l d s m i l e u p o n
u n a u t h o r i z e d digital s a m p l i n g that i n d i r e c t l y c o m m e n t e d o n the
culture at l a r g e — t h a t i s — m o s t s a m p l i n g . B u t s a m p l i n g that directly
c o m m e n t s u p o n its s o u r c e , p o s i t i v e l y or negatively, m i g h t h a v e a
c h a n c e for c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F u n d a m e n t a l l y , c o u r t s , C o n g r e s s , a n d the
p u b l i c s h o u l d c o n s i d e r h o w creativity h a p p e n s in A m e r i c a . E t h n o -
centric n o t i o n s of creativity a n d a m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of political p o w e r
in f a v o r o f e s t a b l i s h e d artists a n d m e d i a c o m p a n i e s h a v e a l r e a d y
s e r v e d to stifle e x p r e s s i o n — t h e e x a c t o p p o s i t e of the d e c l a r e d p u r -
p o s e of c o p y r i g h t l a w . 75
 5

The Digital Moment

The End of Copyright?

T H E J A Z Z P I A N I S T H e r b i e H a n c o c k started his career in C h i c a g o in

the 1960s, playing w i t h s u c h l e g e n d s as D o n a l d B y r d , Wes M o n t -
gomery, Q u i n c y J o n e s , S o n n y Rollins, a n d D e x t e r G o r d o n . B y the late
1960s, H a n c o c k h a d m o v e d b e y o n d blues a n d b o p , e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h
the a v a n t - g a r d e s o u n d s of Eric Dolphy. M o s t of H a n c o c k ' s notoriety
c a m e f r o m his m i d - 1 9 6 0 s w o r k in the l e g e n d a r y M i l e s Davis Quintet.
H a n c o c k a n d D a v i s split in 1968. B u t in separate g r o u p s they b o t h soon
p u s h e d the r h y t h m i c f o u n d a t i o n s of jazz into n e w areas t h r o u g h the
late 1960s a n d early 1970s, e m b r a c i n g funkier r h y t h m s a n d m o r e lively,
colorful a r r a n g e m e n t s than the hard b o p that h a d d o m i n a t e d the scene
for m o s t of the d e c a d e . A s a k e y b o a r d player, H a n c o c k s o o n discovered
the creative potential of a n e w i n s t r u m e n t — t h e electronic synthesizer.
Synthesizers offered H a n c o c k a n d o t h e r c o m p o s e r s a n e w set of s o u n d s
a n d n e w w a y s to m a n i p u l a t e t h e m . K e y b o a r d players c o u l d generate
t h o u s a n d s of n e w s o u n d s : b u z z e s , chirps, w h i s t l e s , solid tones (with
u n l i m i t e d sustain), crashes, a n d sirens. Players c o u l d alter the pitch, du-
ration, a n d t i m b r e of a song b y t w e a k i n g a f e w k n o b s or dials. 1

Early synthesizers w e r e h u g e a n d ungainly, difficult to e m p l o y

for live p e r f o r m a n c e s . T h e y u s e d analog technology. Different electric
voltages created a n d controlled the s o u n d s . H i g h e r voltages generated
h i g h e r n o t e s a n d lower v o l t a g e s created l o w e r n o t e s . T h e first genera-
tion of synthesizers c o u l d p l a y o n l y a single n o t e at a t i m e . To get m o r e
m u s i c a l d e p t h a n d texture a n d to p l a y s i m p l e chords, m u s i c i a n s stacked
several e x p e n s i v e synthesizers to p l a y at o n c e or layered parts o n tape,
m i x i n g it later in the studio. B y the m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , several c o m p a n i e s h a d
i n t r o d u c e d p o l y p h o n i c a n a l o g synthesizers w i t h a t t a c h e d k e y b o a r d s .
S o o n synthesizer c o m p a n i e s a d d e d c o m p u t e r m e m o r y to their s y s t e m s ,
m a k i n g it easier to use s m a l l e r synthesizers in live s h o w s . B y 1979, key-
b o a r d s c a m e w i t h c o m p u t e r interfaces installed. If all of a m u s i c i a n ' s

149
 150 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

synthesizers w e r e of the s a m e b r a n d , t h e y c o u l d o p e r a t e together

t h r o u g h a single k e y b o a r d . B u t there w a s n o s t a n d a r d of c o m p a t i b i l -
ity. E a c h c o m p a n y ' s e q u i p m e n t offered different features a n d abilities.
H a n c o c k , e n c h a n t e d b y the n e w g a d g e t s , c u s t o m i z e d c o n n e c t i o n s for
his v a r i o u s synthesizers s o t h e y w o u l d w o r k in concert. H a n c o c k ' s
h a c k i n g inspired the n e x t R e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e in electronic m u s i c : the
creation of an o p e n compatibility s t a n d a r d k n o w n as the M u s i c a l In-
s t r u m e n t Digital Interface, or M I D I , in 1982. M I D I s o f t w a r e protocols
tell a synthesizer the duration of a n o t e , the s h a p e a n d pitch of a s o u n d ,
a n d its v o l u m e . 2

M I D I t r a n s f o r m s the a n a l o g signal of a synthesizer into a digital

stream, representing all the v a r i a n c e s of s o u n d s in a string of z e r o s a n d
ones. A n d M I D I allows that i n f o r m a t i o n to flow o v e r a n e t w o r k of m u -
sical i n s t r u m e n t s a n d input a n d o u t p u t devices.
W i t h i n a c o u p l e of years, M I D I b e c a m e the universal s t a n d a r d for
digital m u s i c . A n d its success o p e n e d the m u s i c i n d u s t r y to the p o t e n -
tial of c o n v e r t i n g e v e r y step in its p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s to digital tech-
nology. T h e M I D I s t a n d a r d s are n o w u s e d b y h o m e c o m p u t e r s to g e n -
erate, share, a n d p l a y m u s i c a n d v i d e o files. At its heart, M I D I is like the
b l u e s - b a s e d m u s i c that inspired H e r b i e H a n c o c k ' s c a r e e r — p o r t a b l e ,
w i d e l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a variety of i n s t r u m e n t s , o p e n for a n y o n e to
i m p r o v e , a n d thus p o w e r f u l l y a d a p t a b l e . 3

T h e parallels b e t w e e n jazz a n d o p e n t e c h n o l o g y w e r e n o t lost on

H a n c o c k , w h o h a d b e e n a n engineering student at Grinnell College in
the 1950s. In 1983, H a n c o c k released a n electronic a l b u m called Future
Shock. It featured a single called " R o c k i t " that s o o n c l i m b e d to the top of
d a n c e a n d soul charts a n d g a r n e r e d a G r a m m y a w a r d for b e s t r h y t h m
a n d blues single. T h e s o n g featured s a m p l e d s o u n d s a n d " s c r a t c h e s "
s u c h as rap artists w e r e using over a b e d of j a z z y electronic k e y b o a r d
riffs. " R o c k i t " h a d a n infectious beat. M o s t Revolutionary, H a n c o c k re-
l e a s e d a v i d e o of the s o n g at a t i m e w h e n M T V w a s in its infancy. T h e
v i d e o featured a g r o u p of robots w i t h d i s m e m b e r e d a p p e n d a g e s d a n c -
i n g a r o u n d w h i l e H a n c o c k p e r f o r m e d o n his electronic k e y b o a r d . H a n -
cock n o t o n l y inspired the digitization of m u s i c in general a n d the dar-
i n g fusion of p o p m u s i c styles b u t h e l p e d establish the m u s i c v i d e o as a
site of intense creativity in the early 1980s.
H a n c o c k w a s also instrumental in m a k i n g digital s a m p l i n g accept-
able as a n artistic t e c h n i q u e w i t h i n the African A m e r i c a n m u s i c a l tradi-
tion. F e w jazz m u s i c i a n s h a v e e m b r a c e d s a m p l i n g as e a g e r l y as H a n -
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 151

cock h a s . In 1993, H a n c o c k a l l o w e d the rap g r o u p U s 3 to s a m p l e his

1964 classic " C a n t a l o u p e I s l a n d . " U s 3 w o r k e d w i t h the B l u e N o t e jazz
c a t a l o g u e to create the hit a l b u m Hand on the Torch, w h i c h o p e n s u p w i t h
the f u n k y d a n c e single " C a n t a l o o p . " To s a m p l e a piece of m u s i c , o n e
4

m u s t convert it f r o m analog to digital signals. We live in a n analog

w o r l d . T h e sensations w e e x p e r i e n c e are m a n i p u l a t i o n s of light and
matter, interpreted b y o u r organs a n d m i n d as w a v e s . T h e s e w a v e s
h a v e several aspects to t h e m , m o s t significantly f r e q u e n c y a n d ampli-
tude. W h e n s o m e o n e plucks a guitar string, h e r finger vibrates the
string, the string vibrates the air, a n d the air vibrates o u r e a r d r u m s . We
can represent the p l u c k in m a n y w a y s , including a drop of ink o n m u s i c
staff paper. This is a n a n a l o g representation. T h e m u s i c i a n ' s e y e s can
scan the paper, s e n s e the difference in light reflecting off the staff paper,
a n d relay a signal to her m i n d . H e r m i n d t h e n signals h e r finger to p l u c k
the s a m e string for the s a m e duration. We c a n record the p l u c k as a se-
ries of m a g n e t i c flakes on plastic tape. We c a n carve g r o o v e s into plas-
tic or w a x to replicate the s o u n d .
Or w e c a n c o n v e r t the m a n i p u l a t i o n s of m a t t e r that m a k e u p an
analog signal into digital f o r m — a series of o n e s a n d z e r o s — b y r u n n i n g
the s o u n d t h r o u g h c o m p u t e r software. T h e c o m p u t e r m e a s u r e s the fre-
q u e n c y a n d a m p l i t u d e of each s o u n d a n d generates a string of B o o l e a n
signals to represent each s o u n d a n d shift. A c o m p u t e r can store these
digital signals in a variety of m e d i a . It c a n then p l a y the signals b a c k
with s o m e t h i n g close to perfect reproductive quality. O f c o u r s e this
m e t h o d of representing a n a l o g signals in digital f o r m does n o t limit it-
self to s o u n d . Reflections of light can b e represented the s a m e way, al-
l o w i n g for the c o n v e r s i o n of all sorts of i m a g e s into strings of digits. A s
Paul G o l d s t e i n explains, digital formats offer three p o w e r f u l advan-
tages for creativity a n d e c o n o m y : fidelity, c o m p r e s s i o n , a n d malleabil-
ity. At first glance, these features s e e m terrifying to the copyright-rich
a n d exciting to the copyright-poor. B u t that is n o t necessarily so.

DEFINING THE DIGITAL M O M E N T

H e r b i e H a n c o c k w a s present at the d a w n of the digital m o m e n t . F r o m

the early 1980s t h r o u g h the late 1990s, artists, m u s i c i a n s , h a c k e r s , intel-
lectuals, p o l i c y m a k e r s , a n d b u s i n e s s leaders e m b r a c e d the t r a n s f o r m a -
tive potential of digital technology. Besides the digital representation of
 152 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

all f o r m s of expression, the other, p e r h a p s m o r e significant p r o c e s s in-

herent in the "digital m o m e n t " is the rise of n e t w o r k s . T h e ability for
p e o p l e to share ideas, i n f o r m a t i o n , e x p r e s s i o n s , truths, a n d lies over
vast distances in virtually n o t i m e (and at n o discernible m a r g i n a l cost)
has d e e p l y frightened the p o w e r f u l a n d e m p o w e r e d those b l e s s e d with
a c o n n e c t i o n to the n e t w o r k . 5

T h e synergistic relationship b e t w e e n these t w o p r o c e s s e s — d i g i t i -

zation a n d n e t w o r k i n g — h a s collapsed s o m e i m p o r t a n t distinctions
that h a d existed in the A m e r i c a n copyright s y s t e m for m o s t of the t w e n -
tieth century. C o n v e r t i n g M o z a r t ' s Jupiter Symphony into a series of ones
a n d zeros h a s collapsed the idea-expression dichotomy. O n e s a n d zeros
are the simplest possible g r a m m a r t h r o u g h w h i c h w e c a n express a n y -
thing. A living, breathing s y m p h o n y orchestra m a y b e the m o s t c o m -
plex m e d i u m o n e c o u l d c h o o s e to express the s a m e n o t e s . A n d the a n a -
log v i b r a t i o n s in the air that fills a s y m p h o n y hall m i g h t b e the m o s t
c o m p l e x g r a m m a r one c o u l d use to express those ideas. P e r h a p s the
ones a n d zeros are ideas, a n d the a n a l o g v e r s i o n s w e inhale are the ex-
pressions. B u t if strings of o n e s a n d zeros operate as a n a l p h a b e t , a code,
for representing ideas, s h o u l d n ' t t h e y enjoy status as expressions? A r e
strings of digital c o d e expressions w o r t h y of b o t h c o p y r i g h t protection
a n d First A m e n d m e n t protection?
T h e digital m o m e n t h a s also collapsed the distinctions a m o n g three
f o r m e r l y distinct p r o c e s s e s : gaining access to a w o r k ; using (we u s e d to
call it " r e a d i n g " ) a w o r k ; a n d c o p y i n g a w o r k . In the digital environ-
m e n t , o n e cannot g a i n access to a n e w s story w i t h o u t m a k i n g several
copies of it. If I w a n t to share m y m o r n i n g n e w s p a p e r w i t h a friend, I
just g i v e her the object. I do n o t n e e d to m a k e a copy. B u t in the digital
w o r l d , I do. W h e n I click o n the w e b site that contains the n e w s story,
the c o d e in m y c o m p u t e r ' s r a n d o m access m e m o r y is a copy. T h e source
c o d e in h y p e r t e x t m a r k u p l a n g u a g e is a copy. A n d the i m a g e of the
story o n the screen is a copy. If I w a n t a friend to read the story as well,
I m u s t m a k e a n o t h e r c o p y that is attached to a n e-mail. T h e e-mail
m i g h t sit as a c o p y o n m y friend's server. A n d then m y friend w o u l d
m a k e a c o p y in h e r hard drive w h e n receiving the e-mail, a n d m a k e oth-
ers in R A M a n d o n the screen w h i l e reading it. C o p y r i g h t w a s designed
to regulate o n l y c o p y i n g . It w a s n o t s u p p o s e d to regulate o n e ' s rights to
read or share. B u t n o w that the distinctions a m o n g accessing, using, a n d
copying have collapsed, copyright policy makers have found them-
selves f a c e d w i t h w h a t s e e m s to b e a difficult choice: either relinquish
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 153

s o m e control o v e r c o p y i n g or e x p a n d c o p y r i g h t to regulate access and

u s e , despite the chilling effect this m i g h t h a v e on creativity, c o m m u n i t y ,
a n d democracy.
T h e third distinction that the digital m o m e n t collapsed is that b e -
t w e e n p r o d u c e r s a n d c o n s u m e r s of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d culture. T h e low
price of n e t w o r k - r e a d y c o m p u t e r s a n d digital e q u i p m e n t in the United
States has r e d u c e d the barriers to e n t r y into m u s i c , literature, n e w s ,
c o m m e n t a r y , a n d p o r n o g r a p h y p r o d u c t i o n a n d distribution. For less
than $5,000 in 2 0 0 0 , a y o u n g p e r s o n c o u l d record, p r o d u c e , edit, adver-
tise, a n d distribute h u n d r e d s of n e w s o n g s . Of course, the ease of dis-
tribution a n d the l o w barriers of entry h a v e created a c a c o p h o n y of
" w h i t e n o i s e " in the digital e n v i r o n m e n t . Creativity h a s b e e n d e m o c r a -
tized, b u t it's that m u c h h a r d e r to attract a n a u d i e n c e or a market.
Digitization a n d n e t w o r k i n g h a v e also collapsed the distinctions
b e t w e e n local a n d global c o n c e r n s . T h e U.S. C o n g r e s s c a n o u t l a w g a m -
bling o n the Internet. B u t the U.S. g o v e r n m e n t h a s n o authority to reg-
ulate a server o n a small island i n the C a r i b b e a n S e a . A s w i t h all q u e s -
tions of digital regulation, w h a t jurisdiction s h o u l d rule on c o p y r i g h t
concerns?
T h e distinctions a m o n g the different types of "intellectual p r o p -
e r t y " h a v e also e r o d e d , if not collapsed. T h e y h a v e certainly collapsed
in the p u b l i c m i n d a n d g e n e r a t e d m u c h c o n f u s i o n in p u b l i c discourse.
T h e distinctions also h a v e c o l l a p s e d in practice. For instance, c o m p u t e r
software w a s until the late 1980s the subject of c o p y r i g h t protection.
T h e n the U.S. Patent Office started issuing patents for algorithms. A s
the i n d u s t r y h a s g r o w n , so h a v e the stakes in its legal protection. N o w
software c a n c a r r y legal protections that e m a n a t e f r o m copyright,
patent, t r a d e m a r k , trade secret, a n d contract law. So w h i l e the p h r a s e
"intellectual p r o p e r t y " w a s m e r e l y a m e t a p h o r a n d a n a c a d e m i c con-
v e n t i o n in the 1960s, b y 2 0 0 0 it w a s a reality. 6

THE "DIGERAT!" A N D "COPYLEFT"

T h e digital m o m e n t inspired a flurry of intellectual w o r k about c o p y -

right. N o t since the A m e r i c a n literati c a m p a i g n e d for international
copyright protection in the 1870s a n d 1880s h a d so m a n y i m p o r t a n t
writers a n d thinkers w a x e d a b o u t copyright policy. M o s t influential
a m o n g the " d i g e r a t i " w a s J o h n P e r r y Barlow, a f o u n d e r of the Electronic
 154 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

Frontier F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o r m e r lyricist for the Grateful D e a d . B a r l o w

w r o t e that the application of traditional c o p y r i g h t laws to the digital en-
v i r o n m e n t w a s a f u n d a m e n t a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d m i s t a k e . In an in-
fluential 1994 e s s a y in Wired m a g a z i n e , B a r l o w w r o t e that c o p y r i g h t
w a s d e s i g n e d to protect ideas as e x p r e s s e d in fixed f o r m , b u t not the
ideas or bits of i n f o r m a t i o n t h e m s e l v e s . H e c h o s e the m e t a p h o r of w i n e
a n d bottles: c o p y r i g h t protects the bottles, n o t the w i n e . But n o w the
bottles h a v e all o v e r f l o w e d , so the s y s t e m s e e m s to m a k e n o sense, Bar-
l o w w r o t e . B a r l o w did n o t prescribe a solution to the digital d i l e m m a .
H e o n l y n a m e d a n d outlined the p r o b l e m s that large portions of the
global e c o n o m y w o u l d confront over the n e x t five y e a r s . 7

W h i l e B a r l o w d i a g n o s e d a p r o b l e m inherent in the digital m o m e n t

a n d celebrated w h a t h e t h o u g h t m i g h t b e a p o w e r f u l l y libertarian m o -
m e n t , R i c h a r d S t a l l m a n s e n s e d just the opposite trend in the late 1980s.
Stallman, a p r o g r a m m e r w h o w a s then w o r k i n g for the M a s s a c h u s e t t s
Institute of Technology, s a w the rise of proprietary software s y s t e m s as
a severe threat to f r e e d o m a n d creativity. In fact, S t a l l m a n a r g u e d , too
m u c h control over software t h r o u g h contract, trade secrets, or copyright
i m p e d e d the d e v e l o p m e n t of the best possible software. T h e software
i n d u s t r y w a s b o r n out of collaboration a m o n g the academy, the gov-
e r n m e n t , a n d private industry. A n d in the 1960s a n d 1970s, m u c h of the
culture of software reflected the o p e n n e s s a n d spirit of c o m m u n i t y a n d
inquiry that exist w i t h i n the academy. But o n c e the i n d u s t r y o u t g r e w
its o w n incubators, a different, conflicting v a l u e infected its practices.
W h a t w a s o n c e p u b l i c , s h a r e d , collaborative, a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l b e c a m e
secret, proprietary, a n d j e a l o u s l y g u a r d e d . B a c k in the 1960s a n d 1970s,
only c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m e r s u s e d c o m p u t e r s widely. S o f t w a r e c o m p a -
nies (which w e r e m o r e often t h a n n o t also h a r d w a r e c o m p a n i e s s u c h as
A T & T a n d I B M ) released the source c o d e w i t h their s o f t w a r e s o that
p r o g r a m m e r s c o u l d alter a n d c u s t o m i z e it to their n e e d s . S o u r c e c o d e is
the set of instructions that h u m a n beings w r i t e in l a n g u a g e s s u c h as For-
tran, Pascal, C O B O L , a n d C + + . P r o g r a m m a b l e c o m p u t e r s h a v e a fea-
ture called a " c o m p i l e r " that translates s o u r c e c o d e into " m a c h i n e lan-
g u a g e , " or object code. In general, o n l y h u m a n s c a n read s o u r c e code.
O n l y m a c h i n e s c a n read object c o d e . A s the s o f t w a r e i n d u s t r y blos-
s o m e d in the 1980s, c o m p a n i e s realized there w a s c o m m e r c i a l v a l u e in
k e e p i n g the s o u r c e c o d e secret. If a b u y e r n e e d e d a particular feature, he
or s h e h a d to order it from the software c o m p a n y . In addition, c o m p e t -
ing s o f t w a r e c o m p a n i e s w o u l d h a v e a difficult t i m e replicating the ef-
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 155

fects of the object c o d e w i t h o u t access to the source c o d e . Before the rise

of W i n d o w s , U N I X w a s o n e of the m o s t c o m m o n a n d p o w e r f u l operat-
ing s y s t e m s available. It w a s flexible, p o w e r f u l , a n d stable. B u t it w a s
h a r d l y user-friendly. O n l y professionals dared to p l a y w i t h U N I X .
W h e n AT&T, w h i c h distributed U N I X (although it w a s d e v e l o p e d in
collaboration w i t h universities, especially the University of California
at B e r k e l e y ) , b o t t l e d u p its source c o d e i n the 1980s, it a n g e r e d m a n y
c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m e r s w h o h a d c o n s i d e r e d t h e m s e l v e s p a r t of the
U N I X team. A m o n g these w a s Pdchard Stallman. Stallman g r e w frus-
trated that h e c o u l d n o t c u s t o m i z e a particular printer driver a n d other
peripherals. If h e c o u l d o n l y get a p e e k at the source c o d e , it w o u l d take
h i m m i n u t e s or h o u r s to create a patch a n d m a k e the s y s t e m w o r k bet-
ter. Instead, e v e r y t i m e users h a d a p r o b l e m , t h e y h a d to wait m o n t h s or
years for the c o m p a n y to roll out a n o t h e r v e r s i o n a n d fix it. 8

Frustrated b y the u n w i l l i n g n e s s of u n i v e r s i t y c o m p u t e r a d m i n i s -
trators to s t a n d u p for their values in the face of increasing corporate
control, S t a l l m a n left M I T a n d f o u n d e d the Free Software F o u n d a t i o n in
1984 to p r o m o t e the use of " f r e e s o f t w a r e , " p r o g r a m s u n e n c u m b e r e d b y
p r o p r i e t a r y restrictions o n alterations, revisions, repairs, a n d distribu-
tion. A l s o in 1984, S t a l l m a n w r o t e the " G N U M a n i f e s t o . " G N U stands
for " G n u ' s N o t U N I X ! " . In the m a n i f e s t o , S t a l l m a n w r o t e ,

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide
the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with
others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I can-
not in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software
license agreement. 9

S t a l l m a n w e n t to great lengths to define the f r e e d o m h e v a l u e d . It w a s

not the " g i v e it a w a y for f r e e " f r e e d o m that idealized the foolishly gen-
erous. S t a l l m a n said that " F r e e Software is a matter of liberty, not price.
To u n d e r s t a n d this concept, y o u s h o u l d t h i n k of 'free s p e e c h , ' n o t 'free
b e e r . ' " S t a l l m a n outlined four specific f r e e d o m s central to the Free Soft-
ware movement:

• T h e f r e e d o m to r u n a p r o g r a m for a n y p u r p o s e .
• T h e f r e e d o m to e x a m i n e a n d a d a p t a p r o g r a m (and thus to get
access to the source c o d e — i t w o u l d b e " O p e n S o u r c e " ) .
 156 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

• T h e f r e e d o m to distribute copies.
• T h e f r e e d o m to i m p r o v e a n y p r o g r a m . 10

S t a l l m a n started coding free p r o g r a m s that w o u l d w o r k w i t h U N I X . B u t

h e h o p e d for a better yet o p e n o p e r a t i n g s y s t e m to e m e r g e . In the 1990s,
s o m e o t h e r p r o g r a m m e r s g e n e r a t e d L I N U X , the o p e r a t i n g system
O p e n S o u r c e c h a m p i o n s n e e d e d to m a k e free software i m p o r t a n t a n d
p o w e r f u l . T h e Free Software m o v e m e n t h a d g r o w n to b e a m a j o r force
in the s o f t w a r e w o r l d b y the year 2 0 0 0 . But for this p h e n o m e n o n to
occur, S t a l l m a n h a d to c o m e u p w i t h a w a y to ensure that n o o n e c o m -
p a n y c o u l d corner the m a r k e t o n the w o r k that Free S o f t w a r e p r o g r a m -
m e r s p r o d u c e d . If S t a l l m a n a n d his collaborators released their p r o -
g r a m s w i t h o u t a n y c o p y r i g h t protection, declaring t h e m in the public
d o m a i n , then a n y c o m p a n y s u c h as A T & T or M i c r o s o f t c o u l d bottle u p
that w o r k b y a d d i n g a f e w proprietary a n d h i g h l y protected features.
So instead, S t a l l m a n c a m e u p w i t h a n ingenious license that h e called
"Copyleft."
Copyleft licenses require that a n y o n e w h o copies or alters Free Soft-
w a r e agree to release p u b l i c l y all c h a n g e s a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s . T h e s e
c h a n g e s retain the C o p y l e f t license. T h u s the license p e r p e t u a t e s itself.
It spreads the principle of o p e n n e s s a n d sharing w h e r e v e r s o m e o n e
chooses to use it. This p r e v e n t s a n y c o m p a n y f r o m trying to release p r o -
prietary versions of free software. If a c o m p a n y w e r e to release a
" c l o s e d " or " u n f r e e " v e r s i o n of the software, it w o u l d b e violating the
original " G N U G e n e r a l Public L i c e n s e " (or G P L ) that it agreed to in the
first p l a c e . T h e c o d e a n d the f r e e d o m s a t t a c h e d to it b e c o m e inalienable.
T h e proliferation of free s o f t w a r e c o u l d n o t h a v e o c c u r r e d w i t h o u t this
license, w h i c h uses the p o w e r of the copyright s y s t e m to t u r n c o p y r i g h t
inside out. C o p y l e f t ' s p o w e r a n d p o p u l a r i t y h a v e a l l o w e d m a n y p e o p l e
to e x a m i n e the f o u n d a t i o n s u p o n w h i c h c o p y r i g h t rests a n d ask
w h e t h e r its p o w e r s h a v e actually w o r k e d to i m p e d e creativity. B y the
year 2000, the principles b e h i n d Free S o f t w a r e a n d C o p y l e f t r e m a i n e d
fringe v i e w s , e v e n t h o u g h the software t h e y inspired a n d e n a b l e d h a d
w o r k e d its w a y into the m a i n s t r e a m of the c o m p u t e r industry. 11

A m o n g t h o s e in the 1990s to m a k e sense of the digital m o m e n t ,

Stanford l a w professor P a u l G o l d s t e i n w a s the m o s t prescient observer
of copyright issues a n d trends. In his 1994 b o o k Copyright's Highway:
The Law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox, Gold-
stein outlined a n optimistic vision of the digital m o m e n t a n d its p o -
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 157

tential for b o t h p r o d u c e r s a n d c o n s u m e r s . G o l d s t e i n s a w o n the local

h o r i z o n a d a y w h e n all cultural c o n t e n t — t e x t , m u s i c , v i d e o , software,
v i d e o g a m e s , virtual reality e n v i r o n m e n t s — c o u l d b e s t r e a m e d into o u r
h o m e s t h r o u g h o n e w i r e a n d out of o n e b o x . E a c h c o n s u m e r w o u l d
h a v e instant access to h u g e a n d substantial private libraries of culture
a n d information.
Goldstein s a w three vestiges of traditional copyright p o l i c y i m p e d -
ing his p a y - p e r - v i e w Utopia: fair use; private, n o n c o m m e r c i a l , nonin-
fringing c o p y i n g ; a n d the idea-expression dichotomy. G o l d s t e i n h a d
fallen u n d e r the s w a y of the f u n d a m e n t a l i s t " L a w a n d E c o n o m i c s "
school of copyright analysis. A c c o r d i n g to this school, b r o a d appeals to
values b e y o n d material c o n c e r n s — c u l t u r e , beauty, dignity, d e m o c -
r a c y — i n v i t e inefficiency into social, political, a n d e c o n o m i c s y s t e m s .
T h e s e e x t r a - e c o n o m i c principles are not b a d ideas p e r se, according to
L a w a n d E c o n o m i c s concepts, b u t p r o p o s a l s that a p p e a l to t h e m should
b e justified b y tests of their utility. Within this school of t h o u g h t , fair use
a n d h o m e c o p y i n g h a v e n o inherent e d u c a t i o n a l or d e m o c r a t i c v a l u e .
Fair u s e is n o t a g o o d idea p e r se, b u t o n l y a n e c e s s a r y flaw in w h a t
m i g h t o t h e r w i s e b e a perfectly efficient a n d rational m a r k e t for cultural
g o o d s . Fair u s e exists s i m p l y b e c a u s e the " t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s " of restrict-
ing c o p y i n g i n the h o m e a n d schools w o u l d b e too h i g h to justify en-
forcement. If H o m e B o x Office or its parent T i m e Warner h a d to negoti-
ate w i t h a c o n s u m e r e v e r y t i m e s h e m a d e a v i d e o t a p e c o p y of The So-
pranos for later v i e w i n g , the c o n s u m e r w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t b o t h e r
recording the show. P e r h a p s out of frustration s h e w o u l d decide n o t to
w a t c h the show. T h e transaction costs of t i m e , m o n e y , a n d stress w o u l d
not justify the s m a l l r e w a r d the c o n s u m e r gets from h o m e recording or
the small return the c o m p a n y w o u l d get from charging each t i m e the
c o n s u m e r r e c o r d e d the show. Similarly, the transaction costs of regulat-
ing e v e r y t i m e a teacher m a k e s a c o p y of a n e w s p a p e r article for thirty
students w o u l d b e too h i g h to justify the hassle of extracting p e r m i s s i o n
a n d p a y m e n t . I m p o s i n g h i g h transaction costs w o u l d o n l y chill this use.
Therefore, the c o n s e r v a t i v e L a w a n d E c o n o m i c s theorists argue, society
benefits from fair u s e a n d p r i v a t e , n o n c o m m e r c i a l domestic c o p y i n g
o n l y b e c a u s e p r o d u c e r s can't exact transaction costs easily a n d effi-
ciently. T h e y c a n ' t m o n i t o r e v e r y u s e . T h e y c a n ' t s e n d a bill t h r o u g h the
mail a n d expect t i m e l y p a y m e n t e v e r y t i m e s o m e o n e records a show.
But Goldstein a r g u e d that the digital m o m e n t a n d the potential of the
Celestial J u k e b o x reduces transaction costs to just p e n n i e s p e r use.
 158 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

U s e r s a n d p r o d u c e r s w o u l d n e g o t i a t e terms just o n c e — u p o n s u b s c r i p -
tion. Freeloaders a n d scofflaws w o u l d b e locked out of the j u k e b o x .
A n d m o s t importantly, p r o d u c e r s w o u l d h a v e exact m e a s u r e s of con-
s u m e r d e m a n d , e v e n c o n c e r n i n g the smallest possible slivers of cultural
p r o d u c t i o n s u c h as q u o t a t i o n a n d r a w information. G o l d s t e i n s a w this
as the b e s t possible b a r g a i n . It w o u l d m a x i m i z e m a r k e t efficiency a n d
d e m o c r a t i z e g a t e k e e p e r decisions. It w o u l d deliver the m a x i m u m n u m -
b e r of products in the shortest possible t i m e for the l o w e s t m a r g i n a l cost
to p r o d u c e r s .
For the Celestial J u k e b o x to w o r k at m a x i m u m efficiency, fair use
w o u l d n o t just b e e c o n o m i c a l l y unnecessary, it w o u l d b e a p r o b l e m .
Fair use is c o p y i n g that occurs o u t s i d e of the gaze of the m a r k e t . Despite
cold L a w a n d E c o n o m i c s p r o n o u n c e m e n t s to the contrary, fair use h a s
clear albeit unquantifiable social benefits—for public education, for in-
stance. O t h e r f o r m s of fair u s e a s s u m e that the user n e e d not a n d p r o b -
ably s h o u l d n o t request p e r m i s s i o n from the copyright holder. A h i g h l y
critical film r e v i e w or scholarly article d e m a n d s that the critic or scholar
h a v e the c o n f i d e n c e to reuse p o r t i o n s of the original w o r k in the s u b s e -
q u e n t w o r k . If the copyright h o l d e r w a n t e d to w o r k the Celestial J u k e -
b o x m o s t efficiently, it c o u l d extract h i g h e r rent for critical u s e , d e n y
p e r m i s s i o n entirely, or exact retribution b y limiting access to other
w o r k s in the future. A n d if parodists h a d to extract p e r m i s s i o n a n d
m a k e p a y m e n t for the original w o r k t h e y targeted, t h e y w o u l d p r o b a -
b l y all g i v e u p . A rare a n d b r a v e copyright holder w o u l d willingly
allow its w o r k s to b e viciously ridiculed. A l t h o u g h G o l d s t e i n did n o t
consider this p r o b l e m in Copyright's Highway, the potential for c o r p o -
rate censorship u n d e r the Celestial J u k e b o x is u n l i m i t e d . A n d , as G o l d -
stein pointed out, for the m a r k e t to w o r k as efficiently as h e h o p e d , p r o -
ducers w o u l d h a v e to m o n i t o r use a n d d e m a n d precisely. This n o t only
raises serious p r i v a c y c o n c e r n s b u t r e n d e r s transgressive fair use im-
possible. This potential social a n d cultural cost did n o t trouble G o l d -
stein. H e a r g u e d that o n l y the strongest possible corporate protections
c o u l d generate incentives to justify the i n v e s t m e n t s in b a n d w i d t h in-
frastructure n e c e s s a r y to p i p e all that digital content into o u r h o m e s .
T o w a r d this e n d , G o l d s t e i n e n d o r s e d controversial d a t a b a s e protection
efforts, a p p l a u d e d the recapture of " l e a k a g e " c a u s e d b y e d u c a t i o n a l
fair u s e c o p y i n g , a n d p r o p o s e d strong proprietary s o f t w a r e protection
t h r o u g h c o p y r i g h t a n d t r a d e secrets l a w . 12

A w a r e of the potential effects of the digitization of all cultural p r o -

 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 159

duction a n d the potential for a n u n s t a b l e c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m , p o l i c y m a k -

ers in the late 1990s set a b o u t strengthening a n d e x p a n d i n g c o p y r i g h t
a n d m a k i n g G o l d s t e i n ' s vision of a Celestial J u k e b o x possible. T h e y
u s e d alarmist rhetoric a n d c l a i m e d that t h e y h a d to act to strengthen
copyright lest t h e y invite anarchy. In 1995 the Clinton A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
released its m a n i f e s t o o n copyright a n d i n f o r m a t i o n policy. It w a s
called "Intellectual P r o p e r t y a n d the N a t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n Infrastruc-
ture: T h e R e p o r t of the W o r k i n g G r o u p o n Intellectual P r o p e r t y R i g h t s , "
u s u a l l y referred to as the " W h i t e P a p e r . " T h e W h i t e P a p e r s u m m a r i z e d
w h a t it c o n s i d e r e d to b e the state of the copyright r e g i m e in the early
1990s, just as digitization a n d digital n e t w o r k s rose to p r o m i n e n c e and
revealed their p r o m i s e . But its s u m m a r y i g n o r e d all m o v e s in the his-
t o r y of c o p y r i g h t that e x t e n d e d or protected the public, or u s e r s ' rights.
In fact, the p a p e r referred to fair u s e a n d other u s e r s ' rights as a " t a x "
on copyright h o l d e r s , as if c o p y r i g h t w e r e n o t g r a n t e d carefully b y the
citizens of a n a t i o n to copyright h o l d e r s as p a r t of a carefully b a l a n c e d
deal. So it o v e r s t a t e d — i n fact d i s t o r t e d — t h e status q u o . T h e n the W h i t e
P a p e r s u g g e s t e d w a y s to " e x t e n d " c o p y r i g h t to c y b e r s p a c e , as if the tra-
ditional principles of c o p y r i g h t d i d n o t a p p l y in the n e w m e d i u m . T h e
W h i t e Paper p a i d n o attention to the p u b l i c interest c o n c e r n s of the
copyright s y s t e m . In fact, the s u b s e q u e n t legislative m o v e s — i n c l u d i n g
the Digital M i l l e n n i u m C o p y r i g h t Act of 1 9 9 8 — e s s e n t i a l l y nullified the
role of deliberation a n d legislation in d e t e r m i n i n g copyright. It let c o p y -
right h o l d e r s b e c o p y r i g h t c o p s . 13

FOUR SURRENDERS

At the b e h e s t of content industries a n d w i t h little p u b l i c discussion, the

Clinton A d m i n i s t r a t i o n u s e d the W h i t e P a p e r as the blueprint to engi-
n e e r four surrenders of i m p o r t a n t s a f e g u a r d s in the copyright system:

• T h e s u r r e n d e r of b a l a n c e to control. A s a result of the chief piece

of legislation in recent y e a r s , the Digital M i l l e n n i u m C o p y r i g h t
Act, content p r o v i d e r s c a n set the t e r m s for access to a n d use
of a w o r k . T h e r e is n o b a l a n c e if the c o p y r i g h t o w n e r h a s all the
power.
• T h e s u r r e n d e r of p u b l i c interest to p r i v a t e interest. T h e r h e t o -
ric of " i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y " in t h e 1990s w a s p u n c t u a t e d b y
 160 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

a p p e a l s to p r e v e n t theft a n d efforts to e x t e n d m a r k e t s . T h e r e
w a s little p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t c o p y r i g h t as a p u b l i c g o o d
that c a n e n c o u r a g e a rich p u b l i c s p h e r e a n d d i v e r s e d e m o c r a t i c
culture.
• T h e surrender of republican deliberation w i t h i n the nation-state
to u n e l e c t e d multilateral n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d i e s . C o p y r i g h t
issues w e n t global. Ancillary m a r k e t s for m u s i c a n d m o t i o n
pictures b e c a m e central to m a r k e t i n g efforts. So the World In-
tellectual P r o p e r t y O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d the W o r l d Trade O r g a n i z a -
tion a s s u m e d a greater role in c o p y r i g h t p o l i c y as multinational
m e d i a c o m p a n i e s s o u g h t global standards that satisfied their
ambitions.
• T h e surrender of culture to technology. T h e Digital M i l l e n n i u m
C o p y r i g h t A c t forbids a n y c i r c u m v e n t i o n of electronic locks that
regulate access to c o p y r i g h t e d material. Before 1998 c o p y r i g h t
w a s a p u b l i c b a r g a i n b e t w e e n p r o d u c e r s a n d users. It w a s d e m -
ocratically n e g o t i a t e d , judicially m e d i a t e d , a n d often m e s s y a n d
imperfect. N o w the v e r y p r e s e n c e of e v e n faulty t e c h n o l o g y
t r u m p s a n y p u b l i c interest in fair use a n d o p e n access.

GOING GLOBAL

O n e of the major m e c h a n i s m s b e h i n d these surrenders w a s the World

Intellectual P r o p e r t y O r g a n i z a t i o n , or W I P O . F o u r times in the twenti-
eth c e n t u r y representatives f r o m u p to 127 n a t i o n s m e t to revise the
B e r n e C o n v e n t i o n for the Protection of Literary a n d Artistic W o r k s .
T h e y first m e t in 1886 after a g r o u p of E u r o p e a n a u t h o r s , led b y Victor
H u g o , c o n v i n c e d political leaders that E u r o p e s h o u l d standardize its
copyright laws to prevent r a m p a n t p i r a c y f r o m n e i g h b o r i n g states. B e -
fore B e r n e , for e x a m p l e , m a n y p o p u l a r F r e n c h w o r k s w e r e pirated in
B e l g i u m a n d sold c h e a p e r than the originals.
A l t h o u g h the U n i t e d States a g r e e d in 1891 to share c o p y r i g h t p r o -
tection w i t h the British E m p i r e , it refused to join the B e r n e C o n v e n t i o n
until 1989. T h e reasons for the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' century-long resistance to
B e r n e are c o m p l e x , b u t they boil d o w n to the fact that for m u c h of
A m e r i c a n history, the U n i t e d States has b e e n a net c o p y r i g h t importer,
w h i l e E u r o p e h a s b e e n a net c o p y r i g h t exporter. E u r o p e a n countries in
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 161

general h a v e afforded b r o a d e r a n d deeper protection to authors and

publishers t h a n the U n i t e d States h a s . For the m o s t part, A m e r i c a n
copyright t h e o r y has l e a n e d t o w a r d m a k i n g b o o k s c h e a p e r a n d m o r e
available a n d — w h e n it a p p e a l s to its M a d i s o n i a n republican r o o t s — e n -
c o u r a g i n g free a n d rich s p e e c h . 14

But all that h a s c h a n g e d . T h e U n i t e d States b y the late twentieth

c e n t u r y h a d b e c o m e a net c o p y r i g h t exporter. S o f t w a r e , c o m p a c t discs,
a n d A m e r i c a n films are a m o n g its strongest exports. R e c e n t m o v e s —
initiated b y the E u r o p e a n U n i o n a n d the C l i n t o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n — h a v e
j e o p a r d i z e d the g o o d things a b o u t A m e r i c a n copyright l a w : that its rel-
atively loose fair u s e provisions a n d limited d u r a t i o n h a v e through
m o s t of its h i s t o r y acted to the benefit of science, e d u c a t i o n , democracy,
creativity, a n d f r e e d o m . Specifically, these recent m o v e s at the latest
m e e t i n g of the B e r n e C o n v e n t i o n in G e n e v a in D e c e m b e r 1996 threaten
o n e of the b e d r o c k principals of A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w : the i d e a / e x -
pression dichotomy.
T h e delegates in G e n e v a c o n s i d e r e d three treaties. T h e y a p p r o v e d
t w o of t h e m a n d tabled the other for further consideration in p e n d i n g
m e e t i n g s . T h e t w o treaties that p a s s e d B e r n e , as the W I P O C o p y r i g h t
Treaty a n d the W I P O P e r f o r m a n c e s a n d P h o n o g r a m s Treaty, h a v e s o m e
m a j o r p r o b l e m s . T h e third treaty t h e y considered, w h i c h w o u l d h a v e
created a w h o l e n e w area of "intellectual p r o p e r t y " law, w o u l d h a v e
protected databases f r o m p i r a c y a n d u n a u t h o r i z e d use. T h e database
proposal is the m o s t d a n g e r o u s of the three. It c o u l d limit scientific ex-
ploration. It c o u l d severely restrict d e b a t e on p u b l i c policy. It c o u l d ren-
der i n f o r m a t i o n a resource available o n l y to w e a l t h y p e o p l e in w e a l t h y
nations. 15

T h e W I P O C o p y r i g h t Treaty provides that c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s will

b e c o n s i d e r e d " p r o t e c t e d as literary w o r k s . " This is consistent w i t h U.S.
case l a w a n d w i t h s t a n d a r d p r o c e d u r e a r o u n d the w o r l d . H o w e v e r , the
protocol clearly considers c o p y i n g s o f t w a r e into R a n d o m A c c e s s M e m -
ory, or R A M , potentially liable c o p y i n g . This is consistent as w e l l with
U.S. case law. O n m y l a p t o p , as o n m a n y other m o d e l s , I c a n create an
i m a g i n a r y R A M disk, so I c a n load a p r o g r a m like Microsoft W o r d into
it a n d r u n the c o m p u t e r o n its b a t t e r y w i t h o u t spinning the h a r d drive,
w h i c h eats u p t i m e a n d energy. W h e n e v e r I l o o k at a w e b p a g e , it gets
copied into R A M until I exit the browser. A n d JAVA plug-in m o d u l e s ,
little p r o g r a m s e m b e d d e d i n w e b p a g e s that y o u load into R A M to use
 162 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

briefly b u t then discard w h e n y o u m o v e on, c o u l d b e the source of fu-

ture lawsuits. M o s t of this c o p y i n g w o u l d not really b e c o m e a p r o b l e m
b e c a u s e I a m n o t trying to sell the R A M copy, but potential c o m p l i c a -
tions a n d conflicts lie b e n e a t h the surface. If I s e n d a pirated piece of
software to y o u via e-mail, it gets c o p i e d into y o u r Internet service
p r o v i d e r ' s computer. T h e n , w h e n y o u o p e n it u p , n o t k n o w i n g w h a t it
is, y o u h a v e m a d e a c o p y in R A M . This c o u l d b e a violation b y both
y o u r p r o v i d e r a n d y o u , w i t h o u t y o u r e v e n k n o w i n g a b o u t it. T h e treaty
c o u l d h a v e c o n t a i n e d l a n g u a g e that w o u l d e x e m p t c o p i e s m a d e w h i l e
" b r o w s i n g " a n d transferring data. D e l e g a t e s f r o m u n d e r d e v e l o p e d n a -
tions p u s h e d for it, b u t the A m e r i c a n representatives objected. T h e y
settled o n b r o a d , f o g g y l a n g u a g e that individual n a t i o n s will consider
differently. 16

T h e s e c o n d B e r n e treaty, the W I P O P e r f o r m a n c e s a n d P h o n o g r a m s
Treaty, deals w i t h m u s i c . In the c o m m o t i o n o v e r d a t a b a s e protection
proposals a n d m o v e s to better protect s o f t w a r e , f e w h a v e e x a m i n e d the
implications of this treaty. T h r o u g h the P e r f o r m a n c e s a n d P h o n o g r a m s
Treaty, U.S. c o p y r i g h t l a w w o u l d for the first t i m e a d o p t a codification
of a c o m p o s e r ' s " m o r a l r i g h t s . " M o r a l rights represent a position in
copyright t h e o r y b y w h i c h the author, composer, or director h a s a l m o s t
c o m p l e t e control o v e r the w a y s in w h i c h his or her w o r k s shall b e p r e -
s e n t e d or m a n i p u l a t e d . M o r a l rights h a v e b e e n part of the E u r o p e a n
copyright tradition s i n c e the first B e r n e C o n v e n t i o n in 1886 b u t h a d
n e v e r b e e n part of A m e r i c a n law. T h e r e h a v e b e e n cases in w h i c h m o r a l
rights crept into the d i s c o u r s e of A m e r i c a n law, but this w a s u s u a l l y b e -
cause the j u d g e s did n o t k n o w w h a t t h e y w e r e doing. T h u s E u r o p e a n
l a w h a s for the last h u n d r e d years s e r v e d the interests of artists a n d
publishers, w h i l e A m e r i c a n l a w h a s p u r p o r t e d to s e r v e the interests of
the p u b l i c at l a r g e . 17

T h r o u g h the W I P O P e r f o r m a n c e s a n d P h o n o g r a m s Treaty a c o m -
p o s e r or e v e n a p e r f o r m e r c a n claim a right to b e identified as the p e r -
former a n d c a n prevent a n y "distortion, mutilation or other m o d i f i c a -
tion of his p e r f o r m a n c e s that w o u l d b e prejudicial to his r e p u t a t i o n . " In
other w o r d s , p e r f o r m e r s w o u l d h a v e v e t o p o w e r over parodies of their
w o r k . This p r o v i s i o n directly s p e a k s to the recent l a n d m a r k case Camp-
bell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., in w h i c h the S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled that the
r a p g r o u p 2 L i v e C r e w w a s within fair use guidelines w h e n it p a r o d i e d
R o y O r b i s o n ' s s o n g " O h , Pretty W o m a n . " If the U.S. C o n g r e s s a d o p t s
this p r o v i s i o n , m a k i n g f u n of other p e o p l e ' s songs will b e p r e c a r i o u s . 18
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 163

BOTTLING UP INFORMATION

Just as B e r n e delegates u s e d this treaty to attack a recent U.S. S u p r e m e

C o u r t case that d e f e n d s p a r o d y a n d fair use, Cambell vs. Acuff-Rose, they
u s e d the c o n v e n t i o n to attack a n o t h e r l a n d m a r k case, Feist Publications,
Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, Inc., in 1 9 9 1 , a n d the f u n d a m e n t a l princi-
pal b e h i n d it. In the Feist case, the U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled that a
p h o n e b o o k c o m p a n y , regardless of the time, effort, a n d m o n e y it in-
vested in c o m p i l i n g a directory, c o u l d not claim copyright protection
over the m e r e i n f o r m a t i o n in the text: a l p h a b e t i z e d n a m e s , addresses,
a n d p h o n e n u m b e r s . C o n f o r m i n g to the alphabet is n o t c o n s i d e r e d " c r e -
a t i v e " e n o u g h to q u a l i f y as a n act of " a u t h o r s h i p , " the C o u r t ruled.
H o w e v e r , it's safe to a s s u m e that the " N o w I k n o w m y A B C s ; n e x t time
w o n ' t y o u sing w i t h m e " part c o u l d b e protected b y copyright. B u t in
Feist, the C o u r t clearly stated the b e d r o c k principal of A m e r i c a n c o p y -
right l a w : Y o u can protect specific expressions of ideas, but n o t the un-
derlying ideas t h e m s e l v e s . You c a n protect the style a n d structure of
" C a s e y at the B a t , " that " t h e r e w a s n o j o y in M u d v i l l e , " b u t n o t the
awful truth that C a s e y did strike out.
To e v a d e the " p r o b l e m " that the U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t g e n e r a t e d for
d a t a b a s e c o m p a n i e s — t h a t others m i g h t feel entitled to c o p y their data
electronically a n d sell it c h e a p e r t h a n t h e y c o u l d — E u r o p e a n a n d A m e r -
ican negotiators h a v e b e e n trying for several years to create a n e w f o r m
of intellectual p r o p e r t y l a w that w o u l d c o n s i d e r d a t a b a s e s protectable
outside the constraints of A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t law. T h e y w o u l d base
this n e w f o r m of intellectual p r o p e r t y n o t o n the idea of " c r e a t i v i t y " or
" a u t h o r s h i p , " as in c o p y r i g h t law, b u t instead on the " s w e a t of the
b r o w " principal: that a n y i n v e s t m e n t of time, effort, a n d m o n e y w a r -
rants protection. T h e delegates at B e r n e delayed c o n s i d e r i n g this third
treaty to protect databases. B u t the E u r o p e a n U n i o n h a s already m o v e d
to protect t h e m , a n d the U.S. C o n g r e s s c o n s i d e r e d d a t a b a s e legislation
in 1 9 9 7 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d 1999.
B y the late 1 9 9 0 s , data s e r v i c e s w e r e the sixth largest s e g m e n t of
the i n f o r m a t i o n industry. D a t a b a s e c o m p a n i e s sell texts of l e g a l cases,
g o v e r n m e n t f i l i n g s , t e l e p h o n e a n d a d d r e s s lists for direct m a r k e t i n g ,
voter profile lists, c o n s u m e r profile lists, c h e m i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , g e o -
logical d a t a , a n d m u c h m o r e . D a t a b a s e p r o v i d e r s collect m o r e t h a n
$100 b i l l i o n p e r year for their s e r v i c e s — a n d t h a t ' s w i t h o u t specific
legal p r o t e c t i o n . 19
Bruce Lehman, President Clinton's commissioner
 164 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

of p a t e n t s a n d t r a d e m a r k s , led the A m e r i c a n d e l e g a t i o n to B e r n e a n d
h e l p e d w r i t e a n d p u s h t h e e n a b l i n g legislation o n C a p i t a l Hill. H e is
on record s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e c h a n g e s as essential to t h e g r o w t h of a
n e w a n d e m e r g i n g A m e r i c a n industry. L e h m a n told the New York
Times i n F e b r u a r y 1997, " W e a r e p r o t e c t i n g p e o p l e a g a i n s t theft of
their intellectual property, n o t trying to stop fair u s e . If y o u ' r e g o i n g
to h a v e p e o p l e m a k i n g l a r g e - s c a l e i n v e s t m e n t s in this n e w digital
e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e y h a v e to h a v e s o m e s e n s e of s e c u r i t y that t h e y
are g o i n g to b e p r o t e c t e d a n d m a k e m o n e y o n i t . " In o t h e r w o r d s ,
L e h m a n w a n t e d to u s e f e d e r a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w as p r o t e c t i o n i s t
m e a s u r e s to s u p p o r t o n e sliver of A m e r i c a n industry. P r o t e c t i n g o n e
i n d u s t r y raises costs a n d limits o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e v e r y o n e else. T h i s
is e x a c t l y w h a t is h a p p e n i n g w i t h the data i n d u s t r y . 20

O p p o s i n g the d a t a b a s e protection m e a s u r e s w e r e representatives

of u n d e r d e v e l o p e d n a t i o n s w h o are c o n c e r n e d b y the concentration of
d a t a b a s e access in w e s t e r n n a t i o n s , scientists c o n c e r n e d a b o u t easy a n d
i n e x p e n s i v e access to data, a n d , of c o u r s e , librarians. T h e p r o p o s e d leg-
islation, w h i c h is similar to b u t in fact m o r e stringent t h a n the E u r o p e a n
U n i o n p a c t , contains the following provisions:

• A d a t a b a s e is subject to legal p r o t e c t i o n " i f it is the result of

a q u a l i t a t i v e l y or q u a n t i t a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l i n v e s t m e n t of h u -
m a n , t e c h n i c a l , f i n a n c i a l or o t h e r r e s o u r c e s in t h e selection, as-
s e m b l y , v e r i f i c a t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of the data-
b a s e c o n t e n t s , a n d t h e d a t a b a s e is u s e d or r e u s e d in c o m m e r c e ,
or t h e d a t a b a s e o w n e r i n t e n d s to u s e or r e u s e the d a t a b a s e in
commerce."
• A l t h o u g h g o v e r n m e n t databases are not p r o t e c t e d , a n d are free
for a n y o n e to use, privately o w n e d databases c o m p i l e d from
g o v e r n m e n t - g e n e r a t e d statistics are to b e protected.
• N o p e r s o n shall " e x t r a c t , use, reuse a substantial part, qualita-
tively or quantitatively, of the contents of a d a t a b a s e subject to
this act in a m a n n e r that conflicts w i t h the d a t a b a s e o w n e r ' s
n o r m a l exploitation of the d a t a b a s e or a d v e r s e l y affects the ac-
tual or potential m a r k e t for the d a t a b a s e . "
• N o p e r s o n shall " e n g a g e in the r e p e a t e d or s y s t e m a t i c extraction,
u s e or reuse of insubstantial parts . . . in a m a n n e r that c u m u l a -
tively conflicts w i t h the database o w n e r ' s n o r m a l exploitation of
the d a t a b a s e . "
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 165

It's i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r a f e w things w h e n w e i g h i n g w h e t h e r
this industry s h o u l d get this special f o r m of protection. First, the data-
b a s e i n d u s t r y h a s g r o w n rich a n d p o w e r f u l w i t h o u t a special l a w to
protect it. S e c o n d , c o n s u m e r s will a l w a y s p a y m o r e for the d e l i v e r y —
quick a n d e a s y access to i n f o r m a t i o n — t h a n t h e y will for the data itself.
D e l i v e r y s y s t e m s are p r o p r i e t a r y a n d protectable b y trade secret and
unfair c o m p e t i t i o n l a w s . A n d as m o r e databases g o on-line a n d link
t h e m s e l v e s to the Internet, t h e y do so w i t h elaborate a n d e x p e n s i v e
gates. We c a n n o t enter t h e m w i t h o u t a p e r m i s s i o n a n d u s u a l l y pay-
ment. T h e y a l r e a d y h a v e b i g gates to k e e p m o s t of us out. T h e y are al-
m o s t perfect m o n o p o l i e s already. Further, m u c h of the " d a t a " these
services p r o v i d e is a l r e a d y protected b y A m e r i c a n c o p y r i g h t l a w s . For
instance, a d a t a b a s e of periodical articles has protection over the spe-
cific e x p r e s s i o n in e a c h article. A n o t h e r layer of p r o t e c t i o n s i m p l y lim-
its their potential uses.
H o w can this m o v e to protect databases i m p i n g e o n the w a y infor-
m a t i o n is u s e d in the w o r l d ? Let's e x a m i n e o n e small yet significant
area that w o u l d b e severely c r a m p e d b y d a t a b a s e protection: scholar-
ship. L e t ' s p r e t e n d I ' m writing a b o o k a b o u t A m e r i c a n life b e t w e e n the
World Wars, a n d I w a n t to use s o m e p o p u l a r icons to represent major
trends in A m e r i c a n culture. I pick baseball c o m m i s s i o n e r K e n n e s a w
M o u n t a i n L a n d i s to represent the puritanical p r o g r e s s i v i s m that drove
the a n t i - i m m i g r a t i o n a n d antiliquor m o v e m e n t s . I p i c k Washington
Senators pitcher Walter " B i g T r a i n " J o h n s o n to describe the rising in-
dustrial a n d technological t i m b r e of the times. I c h o o s e Yankee first
b a s e m a n L o u Gehrig to e x e m p l i f y the i m m i g r a n t w o r k ethic a n d the
generational tensions alive in i m m i g r a n t families. A n d , of course, I use
G e o r g e H e r m a n R u t h to illustrate the excesses of the t i m e s . To write this
b o o k , a n d m a i n l y b e c a u s e I w o u l d really b e l o o k i n g for a n excuse to
write a b o u t baseball, I w o u l d u s e a lot of statistics: h o w B a b e R u t h did
against Walter J o h n s o n ; h o w L o u G e h r i g did against J o h n s o n ; h o w R u t h
a n d G e h r i g m a d e each other better hitters a n d b e c a m e bitter rivals over
time. In o t h e r w o r d s , I w o u l d h a v e to dip time a n d time a g a i n into the
d a t a b a s e of M a j o r L e a g u e Baseball statistics. This d a t a b a s e is easy to get
a n d e a s y to m a n i p u l a t e . Y o u c a n get it o n C D - R O M or in small, h a n d -
h e l d c o m p u t e r s . U n d e r traditional copyright law, m y repeated u s e of
i n f o r m a t i o n for a c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e in this case w o u l d n o r m a l l y de-
m a n d n o p e r m i s s i o n a n d n o p a y m e n t . I n f o r m a t i o n , at the e n d of the
t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y at least, w a s free a n d reusable. O n l y b y reprinting in
 166 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

their entirety the statistical tables f r o m the baseball record b o o k s a n d

using the exact s a m e f o r m a t w o u l d I b e infringing on a copyright.
U n d e r the p r o p o s e d treaty a n d law, h o w e v e r , I w o u l d h a v e to re-
quest p e r m i s s i o n for each statistical cross-reference I m a d e ; I w o u l d
h a v e to p a y a fee for e a c h search I did, p e r h a p s sign a contract that g a v e
M a j o r L e a g u e Baseball a cut of m y m e a g e r b o o k royalties. I m i g h t even
find p e r m i s s i o n to use the i n f o r m a t i o n d e n i e d if the c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s of-
fice f o u n d out that I o p p o s e r e a l i g n m e n t , e x p a n s i o n , artificial turf, a n d
e x p e n s i v e b a l l p a r k f o o d . I m a g i n e e v e r y n e w s p a p e r , e v e r y sports m a g -
azine, e v e r y radio a n d television b r o a d c a s t that covers m a j o r league
b a s e b a l l h a v i n g to s e e k p e r m i s s i o n a n d p a y a fee for statistical data on
players.
L e t ' s s a y a geologist at a private university gets a major grant
t h r o u g h his institution a n d p r i v a t e f o u n d a t i o n s to do geological re-
search off the coast of A l a s k a . This research c o u l d b e v a l u a b l e to b o t h oil
c o m p a n i e s a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l interests. H o w e v e r , l a w y e r s for the pri-
vate university h a v e insisted that databases c o m p i l e d b y university
e m p l o y e e s are the p r o p e r t y of the university itself, so it c a n license the
i n f o r m a t i o n to oil c o m p a n i e s for a h e f t y fee. R e g a r d l e s s of the g e o l o -
gist's best intentions, h e r w o r k c o u l d n o t b e u s e d freely, a c c e s s e d easily,
criticized, or tested. H e r research w o u l d p r o d u c e a small short-term
gain for the institution, b u t n o l o n g - t e r m g a i n for science or the envi-
r o n m e n t . A n d if her w o r k is i m p e r f e c t a n d n o o n e verifies her findings,
it m i g h t e v e n m e s s u p the oil c o m p a n i e s . If J a n e ' s h a n d b o o k s of military
vehicles, w e a p o n s , a n d e q u i p m e n t b e c o m e restricted d a t a b a s e s , debate
over military expenditures m i g h t d r y u p .
A s J o h n D e w e y w r o t e , " N o scientific inquirer c a n k e e p w h a t h e
finds to h i m s e l f or turn it to m e r e l y private a c c o u n t w i t h o u t losing his
scientific standing. E v e r y t h i n g discovered b e l o n g s to the c o m m u n i t y of
w o r k e r s . E v e r y n e w i d e a a n d t h e o r y h a s to b e s u b m i t t e d to this c o m -
m u n i t y for c o n f i r m a t i o n a n d t e s t . " 21

This process of collecting r a w material f r o m a g r o u p of p e o p l e , p r o -

cessing, refining, a n d a r r a n g i n g it, a n d then selling it b a c k to t h e m at
m o n o p o l i s t i c prices is intellectual mercantilism. Just as the East India
C o m p a n y u s e d the British g o v e r n m e n t to s u p p o r t its p r o g r a m to collect
Indian r o c k salt a n d sell table salt b a c k to Indians, the d a t a b a s e c o m -
p a n y R e e d - E l s e v i e r has b e e n using the p o w e r of the U.S. g o v e r n m e n t to
achieve a n operational m o n o p o l y a r o u n d the w o r l d s o that the w o r l d
m u s t turn to Reed-Elsevier to find out a b o u t itself. This is a n e w i m p e -
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 167

r i a l i s m — a n i m p e r i a l i s m w i t h o u t b o r d e r s . C o m p a n i e s w i t h the re-
sources to a s s e m b l e a n d license facts a n d data can control dissemina-
tion to t h o s e u n b l e s s e d w i t h capital. W h e t h e r the u n b l e s s e d i n c l u d e s a
fifth g r a d e r in S o u t h Africa w h o w a l k s ten miles to a library w i t h a n In-
ternet c o n n e c t i o n or researchers at universities, these c o m p a n i e s will be
able to price m o s t c o n s u m e r s out of the i n f o r m a t i o n to e n c o u r a g e
scarcity a n d drive u p d e m a n d . In addition, these c o m p a n i e s will b e able
to c h o o s e w h o m a y gain access to a n d u s e their information.
So w h a t w e are s e e i n g o n the h o r i z o n is the p o t e n t i a l p e r f e c t i o n of
m o n o p o l i e s . D a t a b a s e c o m p a n i e s will n o t o n l y c h a r g e for a n y re-
p e a t e d u s e of their i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t h o l d the k e y s to it as w e l l . O n a n
i n t e r n a t i o n a l level, " i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y " l a w is b e i n g u s e d as a w e a -
p o n i n p r o t e c t i o n i s m . W e ' v e s e e n s e v e r a l m o v e s i n this direction in
the last ten y e a r s : digital a u d i o t a p e legislation, t h e S e m i c o n d u c t o r
C h i p P r o t e c t i o n A c t of 1984, E u r o p e a n U n i o n d a t a b a s e p r o t e c t i o n ,
and the subsequent American response with even stronger database
protection.
A n d there is o n e m o r e s c a r y aspect of database protection. T h e du-
ration of protection u n d e r b o t h the E u r o p e a n a n d A m e r i c a n proposals
is potentially infinite. D a t a b a s e s w o u l d b e protected for twenty-five
years u n d e r the A m e r i c a n plan, b u t that term is r e n e w a b l e e v e r y time
m o r e data are a d d e d . In other w o r d s , the baseball statistical database
w o u l d r e n e w its protection e v e r y season, p o s s i b l y e v e r y g a m e . This di-
rectly violates the enabling clause of the Constitution that g o v e r n s "in-
tellectual p r o p e r t y . " T h e c l a u s e specifically calls for a " l i m i t e d " dura-
tion of protection for p a t e n t s a n d c o p y r i g h t s . 22

T h e electronic n e t w o r k s that s h o u l d b e the great d e m o c r a t i z e r s

could just as easily kill inquiry, expression, a n d debate a r o u n d the
w o r l d . Fortunately, C o n g r e s s b a l k e d at p a s s i n g the e n a b l i n g legislation
for the u n s i g n e d d a t a b a s e p r o t e c t i o n treaty t h r o u g h the late 1990s.

" R E C Y C L I N G " THE IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY

In the b o t t o m - r i g h t corner of the c o m p u t e r screen o n w h i c h I a m writ-

ing this s e n t e n c e sits the i m a g e of a g a r b a g e can. It's an icon, a func-
tional part of the " g r a p h i c a l user i n t e r f a c e , " or G U I , that the A p p l e
C o m p u t e r C o m p a n y d e v e l o p e d for its M a c i n t o s h line in the early
1980s. E v e n t h o u g h this icon r e s e m b l e s a n y c o m m o n a l u m i n u m trash
 168 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

c a n o n e m i g h t see on a c u r b s i d e or a r o u n d O s c a r the G r o u c h on S e s a m e
Street, it is a h i g h l y protected part of A p p l e ' s a r r a y of c o p y r i g h t e d m a -
terials. If y o u are like n i n e out of ten personal c o m p u t e r users in the
U n i t e d States, y o u h a v e a different icon o n the left side of y o u r c o m -
p u t e r screen. You h a v e a g r e e n " R e c y c l e B i n , " a functional part of the
Microsoft W i n d o w s operating s y s t e m since 1995. B o t h of these operat-
ing s y s t e m s share other icons s u c h as folders, d r o p - d o w n (or p o p - u p )
m e n u s , a n d d o g - e a r e d d o c u m e n t s . A n d b o t h G U I s h a v e bins into w h i c h
o n e c a n drag u n w a n t e d i t e m s . Yet o n e b i n is m a r k e d " T r a s h " a n d the
other is m a r k e d " R e c y c l e B i n . " This is a trivial, superficial difference b e -
t w e e n the s y s t e m s . But the difference is a v e s t i g e of a string of contro-
versies a n d cases that m a r k e d a n d p e r h a p s d e t e r m i n e d the d e v e l o p -
m e n t of the personal c o m p u t e r a n d the proliferation of digital technol-
o g y in d a i l y life.
W h i l e recent global m o v e s to protect data w i t h sui generis intellec-
tual p r o p e r t y protection threaten the f o u n d a t i o n of the idea-expression
dichotomy, the conflicts that created m o r e recycling bins t h a n trash c a n s
on o u r c o m p u t e r screens h a v e actually w o r k e d to revive a n d reinforce
the d i c h o t o m y — a t least in the area of s o f t w a r e design.
T h e t e n u o u s revival of the idea-expression d i c h o t o m y b e g a n with
the p h e n o m e n a l success of P a c - m a n , a v i d e o g a m e that M i d w a y M a n -
ufacturing C o m p a n y licensed a n d i n t r o d u c e d to the U n i t e d States at
the d a w n of the R e a g a n era. Within m o n t h s of its arrival from J a p a n ,
the " w o c k a - w o c k a - w o c k a " s o u n d of upright P a c - m a n m a c h i n e s rang
t h r o u g h the corridors of s h o p p i n g malls a n d b o w l i n g alleys across
N o r t h A m e r i c a . T h e idea b e h i n d P a c - m a n w a s r a m p a n t c o n s u m p t i o n .
T h e p l a y e r controlled a joystick that g u i d e d a y e l l o w circle a r o u n d a
m a z e . A s the circle m o v e d , it o p e n e d u p like the j a w s of a n e g g - s n a k e ,
g o b b l i n g s m a l l points of light. E a c h point of light y i e l d e d m i n i m a l
points for the player. M a n y m o r e points c a m e from eating the larger
" p o w e r p i l l " that sat in four corners of the m a z e . W h e n the P a c - m a n
i m a g e ate a p o w e r pill, the four g h o s t s that w e r e c h a r g e d w i t h chasing
the P a c - m a n a n d d e f e n d i n g the m a z e t u r n e d colors a n d b e c a m e edible
as w e l l . If the g h o s t s — I n k y , Blinky, Pinky, a n d C l y d e — w e r e in their
n o r m a l state a n d color, they w o u l d c h a s e the P a c - m a n . If the ghosts
caught the P a c - m a n , the P a c - m a n w o u l d w i t h e r a n d die w i t h a pathetic
" w o o - w o o - w o o - w o o " s o u n d . If the P a c - m a n w e r e e n e r g i z e d , h e w o u l d
chase the g h o s t s . If the P a c - m a n c o n s u m e d o n e of the four ghosts, the
p l a y e r w o u l d earn b o n u s p o i n t s . If a P a c - m a n cleared a m a z e of all the
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 169

points of light, h e w o u l d m o v e u p a level to a m o r e difficult m a z e w i t h

faster ghosts. W i t h i n a f e w w e e k s of regular play, y o u n g p e o p l e discov-
ered that there w e r e certain patterns that w o u l d a l l o w easy victory.
T h e r e w e r e e v e n " b l i n d " spots p r o g r a m m e d into the m a z e , w h e r e a
P a c - m a n c o u l d h i d e u n m o l e s t e d b y the aggressive ghosts. For a t w e n t y -
five-cent charge, a skillful a n d d e v o t e d y o u n g p e r s o n c o u l d p l a y the
g a m e infinitely. 23

P a c - m a n w i z a r d s ruled the v i d e o g a m e parlors in the early 1980s.

T h e skilled players m o n o p o l i z e d the m a c h i n e s to s u c h a degree that
M i d w a y — y e a r n i n g for m o r e q u a r t e r s — s o o n h a d to roll out other ver-
sions of the g a m e w i t h different p a t t e r n s to success. C h i e f a m o n g these
n e w a u t h o r i z e d v e r s i o n s w a s the o d d l y n a m e d " M s . P a c - m a n . " A n d
soon M i d w a y licensed the h o m e v e r s i o n of P a c - m a n for the p o p u l a r
Atari h o m e g a m e s y s t e m . But just after the a u t h o r i z e d Atari v e r s i o n hit
store shelves, a n o t h e r c o m p a n y N o r t h A m e r i c a n Philips C o n s u m e r
Electronics C o r p . , released a similar g a m e cartridge for the long-forgot-
ten M a g n a v o x H o m e E n t e r t a i n m e n t C e n t e r g a m e s y s t e m . It w a s called
" K . C. M u n c h k i n . " T h e Philips v e r s i o n featured a m a z e , points of light,
p o w e r pills, a n d m o n s t e r s that w o u l d c h a s e a n d flee f r o m K. C.
M u n c h k i n . T h e r e w e r e s o m e m i n o r aesthetic differences b e t w e e n K. C.
M u n c h k i n a n d P a c - m a n . K. C. M u n c h k i n w a s green, n o t yellow. A n d he
h a d horns a n d eyes. P a c - m a n w a s a s i m p l e , elegant y e l l o w c i r c l e — a n d
a ruthlessly efficient m u n c h i n g m a c h i n e .
With f o n d m e m o r i e s of H. R. P u f n s t u f a n d M c D o n a l d l a n d fresh in
their m i n d s , l a w y e r s for Atari a n d M i d w a y filed suit against Philips and
M a g n a v o x , expecting the trial court to i n v o k e the t r o u b l e s o m e "total-
c o n c e p t - a n d - f e e l " principle i m m e d i a t e l y a n d issue a p r e l i m i n a r y in-
j u n c t i o n against the sale of K. C. M u n c h k i n . But the trial court instead
focused on the m i n o r differences b e t w e e n the t w o interfaces a n d ruled
that the general idea of a " m a z e - c h a s e " g a m e is not protectable. R e -
v i e w i n g the request for an injunction, the S e v e n t h Circuit C o u r t of A p -
peals also ruled that Atari c o u l d n o t protect general attributes s u c h as
m a z e s , dots, a n d scoring s y s t e m s . But the c o u r t ruled that m a z e - c h a s e
g a m e s did n o t n e c e s s a r i l y require the p r e s e n c e of ghosts a n d the act of
g o b b l i n g s u c h ghosts. T h e court c o n c l u d e d that a n y o r d i n a r y observer
w o u l d see that K. C. M u n c h k i n w a s substantially similar to P a c - m a n .
Therefore, it issued a p r e l i m i n a r y injunction against K. C. M u n c h k i n .
T h e S e v e n t h Circuit s e e m e d to b e m a k i n g the w o r l d safe for m a z e -
chase g a m e s . B u t in fact, n o other competitors to P a c - m a n ' s d o m i n a n c e
 170 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

e m e r g e d in e n s u i n g years. M a z e s w i t h o u t I n k y B l i n k y P i n k y a n d C l y d e
s e e m e d e m p t y soulless, a n d silly. 24

Video g a m e s w e r e a m o n g the m o s t lucrative a n d p o p u l a r software

p r o d u c t s in the early 1980s. But p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r o p e r a t i n g s y s t e m s
w e r e clearly e m e r g i n g as v a l u a b l e b u s i n e s s tools, a n d thus potentially
w o r t h y of h i g h levels of protection as w e l l . C o n g r e s s h a d in 1976 a d d e d
c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s to the list of c o p y r i g h t a b l e w o r k s , b u t courts h a d
not sorted out the limits a n d principles that w o u l d g u i d e s o f t w a r e de-
v e l o p e r s . Specifically, w a s a n operating s y s t e m — t h e g u t s , heart, a n d
m i n d of a c o m p u t e r — p r o t e c t a b l e as a n original w o r k of a u t h o r s h i p or
w a s it part of the m a c h i n e itself, a n d t h u s p u r e l y functional?
A m o n g early p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r operating s y s t e m s , the A p p l e II
h a d a clear e d g e . It w a s cool, flexible, useful, a n d fun. It h a d b r a n d rec-
ognition over s u c h early competitors as C o m m o d o r e a n d Tandy. M a n y
hobbyists w e r e d e v e l o p i n g b u s i n e s s a n d g a m e s o f t w a r e for the A p p l e .
B y 1981, A p p l e e m p l o y e d m o r e t h a n three t h o u s a n d p e o p l e at its h e a d -
quarters in C u p e r t i n o , California, a n d enjoyed $335 million in sales. T h e
c o d e for the A p p l e II o p e r a t i n g s y s t e m w a s inscribed o n silicon chips in-
side the processor, in w h a t is called r e a d - o n l y m e m o r y , or R O M . U n l i k e
its cousin r a n d o m access m e m o r y , or R A M , R O M can't b e m o d i f i e d ,
deleted, or u p g r a d e d b y users. W i t h the success of the A p p l e operating
system, the c o m p a n y h a d little incentive to license it to other c o m p u t e r
m a k e r s . If c u s t o m e r s w a n t e d to u s e a n A p p l e , t h e y h a d to b u y the
w h o l e b o x . A n d just like w i t h the P a c - m a n p h e n o m e n o n , s o o n a s e c o n d -
c o m e r d e c i d e d to c o m p e t e directly w i t h A p p l e . 25

F r a n k l i n C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n h a d t h e i d e a to m a r k e t a c h e a p e r
v e r s i o n of a n A p p l e II. T h e F r a n k l i n A c e 100 l o o k e d like a n A p p l e II,
a n d it h a d a s i m i l a r o p e r a t i n g s y s t e m . U n f o r t u n a t e l y for F r a n k l i n , the
s y s t e m w a s s o s i m i l a r that t h e c o d e c o n t a i n e d s e v e r a l c l u e s to its ori-
gin. Clearly, the e n g i n e e r s at F r a n k l i n h a d g o n e farther t h a n reverse-
engineering the Apple operating system. They had copied major por-
tions of i t . 26

A p p l e lost the first r o u n d in its copyright suit against Franklin. T h e

trial court refused to grant a n injunction against the A c e 100 b e c a u s e it
w a s c o n f u s e d a b o u t w h e t h e r b o t h source c o d e a n d object c o d e w e r e
protectable expressions. P r o g r a m m e r s p r o d u c e source c o d e in c o m -
m o n l y u s e d l a n g u a g e s s u c h as C O B O L , Pascal, o r C + + . T h e n the c o m -
p u t e r uses its " c o m p i l e r " to translate those expressions into object code,
in w h a t is often called " m a c h i n e l a n g u a g e . " T h e trial court c o n c l u d e d
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 171

that object c o d e , u n r e a d a b l e b y h u m a n b e i n g s , c a n n o t b e " e x p r e s s i v e "

for the p u r p o s e s of c o p y r i g h t protection. B e i n g the purest f o r m in
w h i c h o n e m a y render ideas, object c o d e is close to b e i n g a collection of
ideas t h e m s e l v e s . In addition, the court w a s troubled b y the fact that the
object c o d e w a s e m b e d d e d o n R O M chips, w h i c h m i g h t n o t c o u n t as a
" t a n g i b l e m e d i u m of e x p r e s s i o n " as the c o p y r i g h t l a w d e m a n d s . After
all, the m e d i u m of silicon chips is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y " t a n g i b l e " to h u m a n
eyes. But the a p p e l l a t e court reversed the trial court decision in A u g u s t
1983, granting A p p l e a n injunction. T h e appeals court c o u l d not insert
a distinction b e t w e e n source c o d e a n d object c o d e in the l a n g u a g e Con-
gress h a d w r i t t e n into the c o p y r i g h t law, w h i c h defined a " c o m p u t e r
p r o g r a m " as " a set of s t a t e m e n t s or instructions to b e u s e d directly or
indirectly in a c o m p u t e r in order to b r i n g a b o u t a certain r e s u l t . " A n d
the appeals court ruled that R O M w a s just as " t a n g i b l e " as m a g n e t i c
disks or tape. T h i r d , the court ruled that e v e n t h o u g h a c o m p u t e r pro-
g r a m is p u r e l y " f u n c t i o n a l , " the u m b r e l l a of c o p y r i g h t w o u l d still cover
it. E m b o l d e n e d b y this victory, A p p l e a r r o g a n t l y s u r g e d on, enjoying its
fleeting d o m i n a n c e of the p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r b u s i n e s s , refusing to li-
cense its operating s y s t e m to other h a r d w a r e c o m p a n i e s until w e l l into
the 1990s. H a d F r a n k l i n p r e v a i l e d , copyright protection for functional
software w o u l d h a v e b e e n e x t r e m e l y w e a k . O t h e r c o m p e t i t o r s to the
A p p l e II w o u l d h a v e s p r u n g u p immediately, a n d operating s y s t e m s
b a s e d o n the core of the A p p l e s y s t e m m i g h t h a v e b e c o m e the standard
for p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s for m a n y y e a r s . 27

But instead, a smaller, lighter c o m p a n y — o n e that dealt exclusively

in s o f t w a r e , took over d e s k t o p s all over the w o r l d . Microsoft t r i u m p h e d
not o n l y t h r o u g h bullying, intimidation, clear restraint of trade, p r e d -
atory t a k e o v e r s , brilliant public relations, a Rolling Stones s o n g , and
other deft b u s i n e s s m o v e s , b u t b y e x p l o i t i n g w h a t w a s left of the idea-
expression d i c h o t o m y at the e n d of the twentieth century.
Back before 1984, all p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s relied o n textual inter-
faces. W h e t h e r using the archaic C P / M , Microsoft's M S - D O S , or an
A p p l e II, users h a d to k n o w specific c o m m a n d codes to retrieve and
m a n i p u l a t e files. T h e c o m p u t e r w o u l d offer a " p r o m p t , " a n d the user
w o u l d instruct the c o m p u t e r to " r u n , " " s a v e , " or " d e l e t e . " But s o m e
clever engineers at X e r o x C o r p o r a t i o n ' s Palo Alto R e s e a r c h Center, or
P A R C , s a w a n o t h e r way. T h e y e n v i s i o n e d — a n d i n v e n t e d , the graphi-
cal user interface, o r G U I . A G U I w o u l d a p p e a r as a " d e s k t o p . " Users
w o u l d see o p e n files a n d r u n n i n g applications as " w i n d o w s . " P u s h i n g
 172 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

a " m o u s e " o n a tabletop w o u l d m o v e a " c u r s o r " a l o n g the screen. Click-

ing o n a n " i c o n " w o u l d l a u n c h a n application or o p e n a d o c u m e n t .
X e r o x d e v e l o p e d the G U I , b u t it d i d n o t exploit it for c o m m e r c i a l gain.
Instead, it let the r e v o l u t i o n a r y e n g i n e e r s of A p p l e in the front door to
see h o w it w o r k e d . 28

In A u g u s t of 1979, Steve J o b s , the o n c e a n d p r e s e n t c h a i r m a n of

A p p l e , led a small c r e w of his p r o g r a m m e r s into P A R C to c h e c k out the
n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s within. In e x c h a n g e for access to the labs, J o b s h a d
sold to X e r o x a h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d shares of A p p l e stock for $1 million.
A m o n g all to g a d g e t s a n d tricks o n display, J o b s a n d his t e a m w e r e
transfixed b y the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of the G U I . T h e y a s k e d for a detailed
e x p l a n a t i o n of h o w it w o r k e d , a n d the X e r o x p r o g r a m m e r s explained
" b i t m a p p i n g " to t h e m . W h a t these X e r o x c o m p u t e r s w e r e doing w a s as-
signing each pixel o n the screen to a specific bit o n the p r o c e s s o r ' s chip.
T h a t bit w o u l d light u p its pixel on c o m m a n d , a n d the resultant illusion
w a s a c a r t o o n d e s k t o p o n a screen. B i t m a p p i n g required h u g e assign-
m e n t s of m e m o r y to the display function. B u t if m e m o r y a n d process-
ing s p e e d s c o u l d s u p p o r t it, J o b s realized, the G U I c o u l d R e v o l u t i o n i z e
c o m p u t e r u s e . A t least it c o u l d b e the k e y to m a i n t a i n i n g a n d e x t e n d -
ing A p p l e ' s d o m i n a n c e in the b l o s s o m i n g p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r industry.
Since the d e v e l o p m e n t of the A p p l e II, giant I B M h a d a g r e e d to license
M i c r o s o f t ' s M S - D O S for its line of b u s i n e s s d e s k t o p c o m p u t e r s . Despite
the clear technical a n d aesthetic superiority of A p p l e p r o d u c t s , the busi-
ness w o r l d steadily gravitated to the familiar b l u e logo of I B M . B u t J o b s
a s s u m e d that if A p p l e c o u l d roll out a m a r k e t a b l e graphical user inter-
face, the entire g a m e w o u l d c h a n g e . M a n y p e o p l e in the 1980s w e r e still
w a r y of using c o m p u t e r s . A n d the textual interface r e m i n d e d users of
the secret c o d e that c o m p u t e r specialists u s e d . So J o b s sent his p r o -
g r a m m i n g t e a m s o n a Q u i x o t i c quest to d e v e l o p a n e w w a y for h u m a n s
to e x t e n d their perceptions t h r o u g h m a c h i n e s . 29

After the disastrously p r e m a t u r e introduction of the $12,000 Lisa

c o m p u t e r in 1983, A p p l e put all its h o p e in a slicker, m o r e friendly s y s -
t e m b y 1984: the M a c i n t o s h . It c h a n g e d the w o r l d .
M e a n w h i l e , u p the Pacific coast in R e d m o n d , W a s h i n g t o n , software
engineers at Microsoft w e r e b u s y rolling out inferior versions of other
p e o p l e ' s inventions. T h e 1980s a n d early 1990s not o n l y s a w the prolif-
eration of M S - D O S o n a n increasing n u m b e r of m a c h i n e s . It s a w the
introduction of a c u m b e r s o m e M i c r o s o f t v e r s i o n of the s u p e r i o r a n d
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 173

p o p u l a r w o r d - p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m WordPerfect, a Microsoft v e r s i o n of
the R e v o l u t i o n a r y s p r e a d s h e e t p r o g r a m L o t u s 1-2-3, a n d ultimately a
w i n d o w s - a n d - m o u s e - b a s e d graphical user interface w i t h a p o w e r f u l
generic n a m e , W i n d o w s . 30

W h e n Microsoft s o u g h t to introduce a G U I as early as 1 9 8 5 , A p p l e

agreed to license s o m e M a c i n t o s h design features to Microsoft. But M i -
crosoft did n o t specifically p u r c h a s e particular icons s u c h as the trash
can. N o r h a d A p p l e licensed the u s e of items s u c h as tiled w i n d o w s for
s u b s e q u e n t u p g r a d e d v e r s i o n s of Microsoft W i n d o w s . A n g r y that M i -
crosoft h a d a p p a r e n t l y e x t e n d e d its a m b i t i o n s b e y o n d their licensing
a g r e e m e n t , A p p l e filed suit in 1988 against Microsoft over its W i n d o w s
2.03 a n d 3.0 v e r s i o n s , claiming specific contractual a b r o g a t i o n s a n d a
general c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t on the "total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l " of the
M a c i n t o s h system. Two trial court j u d g e s ruled against A p p l e , deciding
that m a n y of the q u e s t i o n a b l e features w e r e either c o v e r e d b y the li-
cense a g r e e m e n t or so c o m m o n a n d o b v i o u s as to b e c o n s i d e r e d part of
the p u b l i c d o m a i n . T h e first trial j u d g e , J u d g e William S c h w a r z e r , drew
the line of i n f r i n g e m e n t so tightly that a n operating s y s t e m w o u l d h a v e
to b e " v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l " to a n original s y s t e m to infringe. T h e s e c o n d ,
J u d g e V a u g h n Walker, r u l e d that m a n y of the features in d i s p u t e b e -
t w e e n the t w o operating s y s t e m s w e r e " p u r e l y f u n c t i o n a l " a n d intu-
itively n e c e s s a r y for a n y graphical user interface. Walker c o m p a r e d the
u s e of file folders a n d d r o p - d o w n m e n u s to dials a n d k n o b s on a televi-
sion set. S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n is n o t c o p y i n g . To a l l o w A p p l e to protect its
"total c o n c e p t a n d f e e l " w o u l d b e to stifle a n y c o m p e t i n g o p e r a t i n g sys-
tem, better or w o r s e .
T h e s e court rulings a l l o w e d W i n d o w s to grow, w h i l e just a few
years b e f o r e a v e r y different a n d m u c h b r o a d e r decision h a d killed off
K. C. M u n c h k i n a n d all potential c o m p e t i t o r s to P a c - m a n . In 1994 a n a p -
peals court agreed w i t h the trial court's ruling, m a k i n g the c o m p u t e r
w o r l d truly competitive, at least at the level of interface design. N o t co-
i n c i d e n t a l l y b y the time the a p p e a l s court ruled, M i c r o s o f t w a s a l m o s t
r e a d y to roll out W i n d o w s 95, its m o s t d y n a m i c a n d user-friendly G U I
o p e r a t i n g s y s t e m u p to that time. Microsoft clearly felt legally safe c o m -
peting directly w i t h M a c i n t o s h b y selling a v e r y M a c - l i k e interface. B u t
just to b e safe, W i n d o w s still features a recycling b i n instead of a trash
can. Microsoft started the 1990s relatively copyright-poor. It success-
fully exploited the idea-expression d i c h o t o m y a n d u s e d it as a w r e n c h
 174 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

to b r e a k A p p l e ' s h o l d over the user-friendly c o m p u t e r m a r k e t . A n d in

2000 M i c r o s o f t — n o w c o p y r i g h t - r i c h — c o n t i n u e d to recycle other p e o -
ple's ideas into their o w n m o n o p o l i s t i c e m p i r e w h i l e fighting to m a x i -
m i z e copyright e n f o r c e m e n t a n d control a r o u n d the g l o b e . 31

C O D I F Y I N G THE DIGITAL M O M E N T

A s the s o f t w a r e w a r s show, the i d e a - e x p r e s s i o n d i c h o t o m y w a s still rel-

evant but certainly in flux b y the late 1990s. A strong defense of the di-
c h o t o m y h a d a l l o w e d for h e a l t h y (and later u n h e a l t h y ) c o m p e t i t i o n b e -
t w e e n A p p l e a n d Microsoft. But a strong p u s h on b e h a l f of database
c o m p a n i e s c o n t i n u e d to threaten the principle b e h i n d the d i c h o t o m y :
that facts a n d ideas s h o u l d flow freely (in b o t h senses of " f r e e " ) , w h i l e
creative a r r a n g e m e n t a n d expression deserve limited m o n o p o l y p r o -
tection. O n several other copyright fronts, courts, C o n g r e s s , a n d inter-
national g o v e r n i n g institutions w e r e steadily strengthening the p o w e r
a n d s c o p e of c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n w i t h little or n o regard for the effects
these c h a n g e s w o u l d h a v e o n d e m o c r a c y a n d creativity.
T h e best e x a m p l e of legislative recklessness is the Digital Millen-
n i u m C o p y r i g h t A c t of 1998, the e n a b l i n g legislation for the W I P O
copyright treaty. T h e Digital M i l l e n n i u m C o p y r i g h t Act h a s o n e major
provision that u p e n d s m o r e t h a n t w o h u n d r e d years of c o p y r i g h t law.
It p u t s the p o w e r to regulate c o p y i n g in the h a n d s of e n g i n e e r s a n d
the c o m p a n i e s that e m p l o y t h e m . It takes the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p o w e r
a w a y f r o m C o n g r e s s , courts, librarians, writers, artists, a n d researchers.
The DMCA:

• Prohibits the c i r c u m v e n t i o n of a n y effective technological p r o -

tection m e a s u r e installed to restrict access to a c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k .
• Prohibits the m a n u f a c t u r e of a n y d e v i c e , c o m p o s i t i o n of a n y p r o -
g r a m , or offering of a n y service that is designed to defeat tech-
nological protection m e a s u r e s .
• O r d e r s the Librarian of C o n g r e s s to c o n d u c t r u l e - m a k i n g h e a r -
ings to j u d g e the effects the l a w w o u l d h a v e o n n o n - i n f r i n g i n g
u s e s of c o p y r i g h t e d material.
• Specifically allows certain uses s u c h as reverse engineering, se-
curity testing, p r i v a c y protection, a n d e n c r y p t i o n research.
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 175

• M a k e s n o textual c h a n g e to the fair use provisions of the C o p y -

right Law, despite eliminating the possibility of u n a u t h o r i z e d ac-
cess to protected materials for fair use p u r p o s e s .
• Limits the liability that on-line service p r o v i d e r s m i g h t face if
one of their clients w e r e c i r c u m v e n t i n g or pirating.

Before congressional c o m m i t t e e s a n d in h e a r i n g s h e l d b y the C o p y -

right Office of the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s , public interest a d v o c a t e s s u c h as
l a w professors, electronic civil liberties activists, a n d librarians outlined
s o m e c o n c e r n s w i t h a n d objections to the D M C A . T h e s e i n c l u d e d the
possibility that the D M C A m a k e s it possible to l e v y fees for various uses
that m i g h t o t h e r w i s e b e " f a i r " or " f r e e , " s u c h as p a r o d y a n d q u o t i n g for
n e w s or c o m m e n t a r y .
In addition, the D M C A e r o d e s the "first sale d o c t r i n e . " W h e n a
w o r k is sold, the copyright h o l d e r relinquishes " e x c l u s i v e " rights over
it yet retains " l i m i t e d " rights, s u c h as restricting c o p y i n g or public per-
f o r m a n c e . But u n d e r the first sale doctrine, the c o n s u m e r c a n highlight
a b o o k , c o p y portions for private, n o n c o m m e r c i a l use, resell it to s o m e -
o n e , l e n d it to s o m e o n e , or tear it u p , w i t h o u t asking p e r m i s s i o n from
the copyright holder. B e c a u s e the D M C A allows content p r o v i d e r s to
regulate access a n d use, t h e y c a n set all the terms of use. A n d as with
the d a t a b a s e protection p r o p o s a l , the de facto d u r a t i o n of protection
u n d e r the D M C A is potentially infinite. W h i l e c o p y r i g h t l a w in 2000
protects a n y w o r k created t o d a y for the life of the a u t h o r plus s e v e n t y
years or n i n e t y years in the case of corporate " w o r k s for h i r e , " electronic
gates do n o t expire. This a l l o w s p r o d u c e r s to " r e c a p t u r e " w o r k s already
fallen or a b o u t to fall in the p u b l i c d o m a i n . This also violates the con-
stitutional m a n d a t e that C o n g r e s s enact copyright l a w s that protect " f o r
limited t i m e s . " M o s t dangerously, p r o d u c e r s c o u l d exercise editorial
control over the uses of their m a t e r i a l s . T h e y c o u l d extract contractual
p r o m i s e s that the u s e w o u l d n o t p a r o d y o r criticize the w o r k in ex-
c h a n g e for access. M a n y w e b sites a l r e a d y do this. Just as d a n g e r o u s ,
the D M C A allows p r o d u c e r s to contractually b i n d users f r o m reusing
facts or ideas c o n t a i n e d in the w o r k . If a user w a n t s to h a c k t h r o u g h ac-
cess controls to m a k e legitimate fair u s e of material i n s i d e — p e r h a p s
facts, a n old film in the p u b l i c d o m a i n , or pieces of the w o r k for c o m -
m e n t a r y or n e w s — t h a t user is subject to civil a n d criminal penalties
u n d e r the D M C A . 3 2
 176 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

MAKING A N EXAMPLE OF HACKERS

A s librarians, i n d u s t r y representatives, a n d copyright office staff at the

L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s d e b a t e d the effects of this l a w d u r i n g the s u m m e r
of 2000, the M o t i o n Picture A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a w a s a l r e a d y h a r d at
w o r k trying to m a k e an e x a m p l e out of those w h o m i g h t c h a l l e n g e it.
T h e m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y ' s n e w e s t format, the digital v i d e o disc
( D V D ) , h a s t w o i m p o r t a n t access control features: a content s c r a m b l i n g
system (CSS) a n d a region c o d e , w h i c h ensures that users c a n p l a y U.S.-
p u r c h a s e d D V D s o n l y on U.S.-purchased D V D p l a y e r s . W i t h o u t the
p r o p e r l y licensed D V D player from the right region of the w o r l d , a
D V D will n o t play. N o t surprisingly, s o m e c o m p a n i e s s u c h as S o n y p r o -
d u c e b o t h m o t i o n pictures a n d the m a c h i n e s o n e m u s t p l a y t h e m on.
T h e m o t i o n picture i n d u s t r y n e g o t i a t e d licenses w i t h p r o d u c e r s of
s t a n d - a l o n g D V D players a n d w i t h b o t h A p p l e a n d Microsoft s o that
c o m p u t e r s r u n n i n g these operating s y s t e m s c o u l d d e s c r a m b l e the c o d e
on D V D s . But in 1999, o n e c o u l d n o t u s e a c o m p u t e r that runs o n the
o p e n - s o u r c e L i n u x operating s y s t e m to r u n D V D s . So s o m e p r o g r a m -
m e r s w h o u s e L i n u x created a n d distributed a small c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m
called D e C S S , w h i c h h a c k s t h r o u g h the C S S a n d region c o d e protection
a n d deposits u n s c r a m b l e d data from D V D to a h a r d drive. D e C S S w a s
i n v e n t e d b y a t e a m of creative a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y m i n d e d E u r o p e a n
p r o g r a m m e r s led b y J o n J o h a n s o n , a sixteen-year-old N o r w e g i a n . 33

S o o n after a n on-line h a c k e r m a g a z i n e called 2 6 0 0 started alerting

its readers as to w h e r e t h e y c o u l d get a c o p y of D e C S S , the M o t i o n Pic-
ture A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a got a n injunction against 2 6 0 0 in federal
court in N e w York. A s the case w e n t t h r o u g h to trial in the s u m m e r of
2 0 0 0 , the Electronic Frontier F o u n d a t i o n a n d the B e r k m a n C e n t e r for In-
ternet a n d Society at H a r v a r d L a w S c h o o l b e g a n assisting the p u b -
l i s h e r ' s d e f e n s e counsel to f o r m u l a t e a strategy to protect the j o u r n a l ' s
First A m e n d m e n t rights in the face of a suit b a s e d o n the anticircum-
v e n t i o n provisions of the D M C A . T h e i r a r g u m e n t s — w h i c h failed to
p e r s u a d e the federal j u d g e — i n c l u d e d the a r g u m e n t that D e C S S c a n be
u s e d for n o n i n f r i n g i n g p u r p o s e s s u c h as fair u s e v i e w i n g s of D V D s
from other countries. T h e y also a r g u e d that b e c a u s e C S S c a n b e u s e d to
protect material in the public d o m a i n , the D M C A is too b r o a d . 34

Public interest a d v o c a t e s also a r g u e d that C o n g r e s s h a d left the def-

inition of a protective " d e v i c e " u p to the copyright holder. T h e D M C A
lets c o m p a n i e s " w r i t e " the law, t h e n p u t s the p o w e r of the state b e h i n d
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 177

them. But the C o p y r i g h t C l a u s e of the U.S. Constitution gives o n l y Con-

gress the right to design copyright l a w s . It c a n n o t delegate l a w m a k i n g
authority. U n d e r l y i n g all of these c o n c e r n s is o n e that s h o u l d h a v e d o m -
inated the discussion in 1998: If pirating is a l r e a d y illegal, w h y do w e
n e e d this l a w ? C o n g r e s s decided it w a s easier to regulate m a c h i n e s than
p e o p l e . T h e D M C A w a s n o t o n l y the e n a b l i n g legislation for the W I P O
treaties. It is the enabling legislation for the " C e l e s t i a l J u k e b o x , " the
" p a y - p e r - v i e w u n i v e r s e , " a n d w h a t Neil P o s t m a n calls " T e c h n o p o l y . "

A PAY-PER-VIEW W O R L D

A s Neil P o s t m a n w r o t e , " T e c h n o p o l y is a state of culture. It is also a

state of m i n d . It consists in the deification of technology, w h i c h m e a n s
that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfac-
tions in technology, a n d takes its orders from t e c h n o l o g y . " P o s t m a n w a s
describing a condition, technopoly, w h i c h h e defined as " w h a t h a p p e n s
to society w h e n the d e f e n s e s against i n f o r m a t i o n glut h a v e b r o k e n
d o w n . It is w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n institutional life b e c o m e s i n a d e q u a t e to
cope w i t h too m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . It is w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n a culture,
o v e r c o m e b y i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t e d b y technology, tries to e m p l o y
t e c h n o l o g y itself as a m e a n s of p r o v i d i n g clear direction a n d h u m a n e
p u r p o s e . " A m o n g the defenses P o s t m a n cited are s c h o o l s , courts, and
the family. P o s t m a n d i d n ' t m e n t i o n it at the time, a n d h e p e r h a p s h a d
not e v e n c o n s i d e r e d it, but c o p y r i g h t l a w is a s y s t e m — a n institution of
practices a n d h a b i t s — t h a t regulates i n f o r m a t i o n b y creating artificial
shortages for limited times a n d for limited p u r p o s e s . It's a n imperfect
a n d s o m e t i m e s inefficient m e c h a n i s m to regulate information. But its
imperfections a n d inefficiencies w e r e its strengths, its d e m o c r a t i c safe-
guards. A n d n o w , m o r e t h r o u g h political intervention t h a n technologi-
cal irrelevancy, w e find ourselves unwilling to accept the i m p e r f e c t i o n s
a n d inefficiencies inherent in c o p y r i g h t law. N o w w e turn to technol-
ogy. W e t u r n to c o d e . 35

A s L a w r e n c e Lessig w r i t e s , w h e n c o d e , n o t h u m a n b e i n g s , regu-
lates c o p y r i g h t , the s y s t e m forfeits its c h e c k s a n d b a l a n c e s .

As privatized law, trusted systems regulate in the same domain

where copyright law regulates, but unlike copyright law, they do not
guarantee the same public use protection. Trusted systems give the
 178 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

producer maximum control—admittedly at a cheaper cost, thus per-

mitting many more authors to publish. But they give authors more
control (either to charge for or limit use) in an area where the law gave
less than perfect control. Code displaces the balance in copyright law
and doctrines such as fair use. 36

But c o p y r i g h t is a l r e a d y b e i n g r e p l a c e d — o r s u p p l e m e n t e d — b y con-
tract. M o s t c o m m e r c i a l s o f t w a r e a n d m u c h digital content c o m e s with
w h a t is k n o w n as a " C l i c k w r a p " or " S h r i n k w r a p " license. U s e r s often
agree to w a i v e rights, s u c h as fair u s e a n d first sale, w h e n they click on
a w e b p a g e b u t t o n to get access to the content. F o r e x a m p l e , the site for
Billboard.com charges its users $14.95 per m o n t h to get access to data
on sales w i t h i n the m u s i c industry. For that fee, m e m b e r s get to v i e w
five articles for n o extra charge. B u t in addition to the m o n t h l y fee, Bill-
b o a r d . c o m charges its m e m b e r s f r o m 50 cents to $2.50 p e r article or
d a t a b a s e v i e w after the five free v i e w s . M u c h of the i n f o r m a t i o n within
the gated w e b site is n o t available in print f o r m . But researchers w h o
u s e the B i l l b o a r d . c o m site are contractually f o r b i d d e n f r o m disclosing
the i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y retrieve. T h e user license a g r e e m e n t states, " U n -
less s e p a r a t e l y a n d specifically licensed to do so in writing a n d b y B P I
(Billboard's p a r e n t c o m p a n y ) , subscriber agrees n o t to re-transmit, dis-
close, or distribute a n y of the i n f o r m a t i o n received f r o m the service, to
a n y other p e r s o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n or entity." In o t h e r w o r d s , p a y i n g users
m u s t sign a w a y their rights to fair u s e . B e c a u s e there is n o " s a l e " in the
transaction, there is n o c o n c e p t of first sale. A n d the u s e r is contractu-
ally f o r b i d d e n from exploiting the idea-expression dichotomy. Users
w h o c h o o s e n o t to p a y for the information, those w h o h a c k t h r o u g h the
w e b site lock to read the articles within, are subject to civil a n d criminal
penalties t h r o u g h the D M C A . T h e B i l l b o a r d . c o m s y s t e m is protected b y
copyright p l u s contract p l u s c o d e . 37

C o m m e r c i a l software, e v e n s o f t w a r e distributed in c o m p a c t disc

form, is protected b y similar licenses. E v e n t h o u g h it m i g h t s e e m that
w h e n y o u s p e n d m o n e y o n s o f t w a r e , y o u are b u y i n g a physical c o m -
pact disc, y o u are actually o n l y renting a license to use the e n c o d e d soft-
w a r e . C o n s u m e r s sign a w a y fair use a n d first sale rights w i t h regular-
ity. It's a pay-per-install s y s t e m that potentially a l l o w s for m e t e r e d
u s a g e or e v e n the electronic expiration of the software.
M a n y of o u r cultural p r o d u c t s will s o o n b e "triple p r o t e c t e d "
b y copyright, contracts or licenses, a n d c o d e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e y will be
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 179

" c l o s e d s y s t e m s , " limited in their ability to e n h a n c e the p u b l i c d o m a i n

or e n r i c h the p u b l i c sphere.

NAPSTER NATION

But citizens are fighting b a c k against these m e t h o d s of digital a n d cul-

tural control. T h e best e x a m p l e of this is the proliferation of peer-to-
p e e r n e t w o r k s . T h e m o s t f a m o u s of these n e t w o r k s is the m u s i c - s h a r i n g
s y s t e m called Napster. N a p s t e r w a s invented b y a t e e n a g e college stu-
dent n a m e d S e a n Fanning. F a n n i n g w a s living in B o s t o n a n d s p e n d i n g
a lot of t i m e surfing the Internet in search of M P 3 files. H e g r e w frus-
trated w i t h the s p o r a d i c availability of M P 3 s o n the World W i d e Web.
So h e h a c k e d the software that allows p e o p l e to p e e r into each o t h e r ' s
hard drives to find a n d c o p y specific M P 3 s . T h e c o m p a n y h e f o u n d e d ,
Napster, h a s attracted million of dollars in v e n t u r e capital, millions of
users, a n d m o r e than its share of lawsuits.
In J u l y 2 0 0 0 N a p s t e r w e n t to U . S . district c o u r t in S a n F r a n c i s c o
to d e f e n d itself a g a i n s t a b a r r a g e of plaintiffs, i n c l u d i n g l e g e n d a r y
c o m p o s e r J e r r y L i e b e r a n d all t h e m a j o r r e c o r d l a b e l s . T h e plaintiffs
c l a i m e d that N a p s t e r is liable f o r c o n t r i b u t o r y c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e -
m e n t b e c a u s e it e n a b l e s t h o u s a n d s of p e o p l e to s h a r e a n d c o p y M P 3 s
for n o cost. T h e c o m p a n i e s h o p e to p l u g u p this l e a k i n the m u s i c dis-
t r i b u t i o n s y s t e m . T h e c o m p a n i e s w o u l d like to d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r m u s i c
electronically, b u t in a f o r m a t t h e y c o n t r o l , u n d e r t e r m s t h e y dictate,
for a p r i c e t h e y c a n e n f o r c e . 38

W h i l e N a p s t e r h a s frightened the m u s i c i n d u s t r y a n d attracted the

attention of e v e r y m a j o r n e w s organization, it is not the w h o l e story.
T h e i s s u e is m u c h larger t h a n the fortunes of N a p s t e r itself. E v e n if a
court shuts N a p s t e r d o w n , the M P 3 m o v e m e n t will thrive. A n d e v e n if
N a p s t e r survives, it's n o t so clear that p e o p l e will stop b u y i n g C D s just
b e c a u s e t h e y c a n get free M P 3 s o n e s o n g at a time. But regardless of the
o u t c o m e of this case, the m u s i c i n d u s t r y will never b e the s a m e again.
T h e M P 3 m o v e m e n t is a rational revolt of p a s s i o n a t e fans. C o m p a c t
discs cost too m u c h . C u t t i n g - e d g e fans w a n t the n e w e s t , coolest m u s i c
as fast as possible. So t h e y share m u s i c a n d tips a b o u t m u s i c w h e r e
t h e y find each o t h e r — o v e r the net. T h e free m u s i c strategy is, for lack
of a b e t t e r term, the Grateful D e a d b u s i n e s s m o d e l : G i v e a w a y free
m u s i c to build a loyal following, establish a b r a n d n a m e , a n d charge
 180 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

h a n d s o m e l y for the total e n t e r t a i n m e n t p a c k a g e . W h o l e creative m o v e -

m e n t s h a v e established t h e m s e l v e s t h r o u g h this process of c o m m u n i t y
b u i l d i n g . In the late 1970s, d o w n t o w n N e w York p u n k fans f o u n d each
other a n d discussed e m e r g i n g artists t h r o u g h the h a n d m a d e fanzines
given a w a y at the f e w clubs willing to h o s t p u n k s h o w s . A t the s a m e
time, u p t o w n in the Bronx, the h i p - h o p m o v e m e n t w a s spreading
t h r o u g h a n e t w o r k of fans w h o w o u l d c o p y a n d l e n d tapes of artists like
G r a n d m a s t e r Flash a n d Kurtis Blow. Free m u s i c h a s a l w a y s b e e n es-
sential to the discursive c o m m u n i t i e s that fuel the creative process.
T h e s e d a y s , s o m e small m u s i c labels s u c h as E m u s i c . c o m a n d C h u c k
D ' s R a p s t a t i o n . c o m are e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h " v a l u e - a d d e d " a n d " g a t e -
k e e p e r " b u s i n e s s m o d e l s , w i t h m o d e s t taxation o n c o n s u m e r s a n d
artists (and t h u s m o d e s t profit potential). T h e y d e p e n d o n o p e n s y s -
t e m s , like the Internet itself, to foster creativity a n d " b u z z " a b o u t their
p r o d u c t s a n d services.
M P 3 distribution offers a w o n d e r f u l o p p o r t u n i t y for e m e r g i n g art-
ists, the v e r y p e o p l e copyright l a w is constitutionally c h a r g e d to en-
c o u r a g e a n d aid. B e c a u s e the established m u s i c i n d u s t r y n a r r o w s the
pipes of p r o d u c t i o n a n d distribution, m a n u f a c t u r i n g scarcity, o n l y es-
tablished artists profit from the old system.
T h i s n e w t e c h n o l o g y e v a d e s the p r o f e s s i o n a l g a t e k e e p e r s , flatten-
ing t h e p r o d u c t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n p y r a m i d . A s C h u c k D of P u b l i c
E n e m y s a y s , N a p s t e r a n d o t h e r s u c h n e t w o r k s are n o t p i r a t i n g m a -
c h i n e s . H e posits that N a p s t e r is r a d i o . F a n s will c o n t i n u e to d o w n -
load c h e a p o r free m u s i c , a n d w i l l c o n t i n u e to b u y C D s if t h e y offer
v a l u e like d o c u m e n t a t i o n , d e s i g n , a r r a n g e m e n t , a n d c o n v e n i e n c e at a
reasonable price.
T h e r e is a n o t h e r m e t a p h o r that m i g h t explain N a p s t e r a n d its ef-
fects better than a c o p y m a c h i n e or a u s e r - p r o g r a m m e d radio: N a p s t e r
is a public library.
Regardless of the direct effect o n C D sales, M P 3 distribution m a k e s
m u s i c fans m o r e i n f o r m e d c o n s u m e r s . In the long run, the m u s i c in-
dustry c o u l d b e m o r e r e s p o n s i v e to m a r g i n s of the m a r k e t , s u c h as eth-
nic c o m m u n i t i e s , s u b c u l t u r e s , a n d political m o v e m e n t s . C o n s u m e r s
c a n o n l y express their preferences rationally if t h e y enjoy g o o d infor-
m a t i o n a n d a fair pricing structure. M P 3 s let c o n s u m e r s taste before
they buy, a n d let t h e m act in concert w i t h l i k e - m i n d e d fans. T h e y let
m u s i c c o m p a n i e s react instantly to c h a n g e s in the m a r k e t place. With
better feedback, a p p a r e n t " t r e n d s " w o u l d not surprise c o m p a n i e s in the
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 181

future. T h e c h a r m of digital m u s i c distribution lies in the t h o u g h t of

capitalist theorists s u c h as Friedrich v o n H a y e k a n d W. E d w a r d s D e m -
ing. T h e current m a i n s t r e a m m u s i c i n d u s t r y is a " p l a n n e d e c o n o m y "
the sort H a y e k railed against. It limits i n f o r m a t i o n flow a n d resists price
pressures. A n d D e m i n g a d v o c a t e d constant c h a n g e , flexibility, n e w
ideas, flat organizational structures, q u i c k reactions to c u s t o m e r prefer-
ences, a n d m a x i m u m creativity. 39

T h e M P 3 p h e n o m e n o n is a battle for control of the m u s i c a n d in-

f o r m a t i o n p i p e l i n e s , n o t the m u s i c itself. Since D e c e m b e r 1999, several
other Napster-like services h a v e e m e r g e d o n the net. U n l i k e Napster,
these are n o n c o m m e r c i a l a n d c o m m u n i t y b a s e d . T h e y d e p e n d o n vol-
unteer p r o g r a m m e r s to fix a n d i m p r o v e the o p e n s y s t e m s . A n d unlike
Napster, t h e y p r e t t y m u c h assure p r i v a c y — f o r n o w . N o o n e h a s a n y
idea w h o else is using these services.
O n e of these relatively o p e n s y s t e m s is called Gnutella. S e v e r a l ver-
sions exist, at least o n e for e v e r y c o m m o n c o m p u t e r p l a t f o r m . Unlike
Napster, it requires n o p a s s w o r d a n d h a s n o registration p r o c e s s . Also
unlike Napster, Gnutella lets users share all k i n d s of files—text, v i d e o ,
p h o t o s , s o f t w a r e , a n d m u s i c . N o o n e " r u n s " or " o w n s " Gnutella.
Gnutella is a n e w k i n d of Internet. B u t it's really w h a t the old Internet
w a s s u p p o s e d to b e . It's free, o p e n , decentralized, u n c o m m e r c i a l i z a b l e ,
ungovernable, and uncensorable. 40

T h e rise of M P 3 f o r m a t s a n d free, o p e n n e t w o r k s like Gnutella

s h o u l d h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d . T h e culture industries invited t h e m . T h e y
h a v e hijacked the c o p y r i g h t system a n d d r a i n e d it of a n y sense of p u b -
lic interest or b a l a n c e . C o p y r i g h t is a n essential state-granted m o n o p o l y
that w o r k s well w h e n b a l a n c e d . T h a n k s to the Clinton A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
a n d its p a r t n e r s h i p s w i t h b i g m e d i a c o m p a n i e s , it h a s lost its b a l a n c e .
W h a t the c o n t e n t industries h a v e c l a i m e d is a " c r i s i s " of digital repro-
ducibility is actually the o p p o r t u n i t y t h e y h a v e b e e n d r e a m i n g of.
T h e m u s i c i n d u s t r y h a s b e e n stalling t h r o u g h litigation until it
c a n e s t a b l i s h a s t a n d a r d s e c u r e digital e n c r y p t i o n f o r m a t , w h i c h is
an essential step t o w a r d a g l o b a l " p a y - p e r - v i e w " culture. This tech-
n o c r a t i c r e g i m e will b e a s e v e r e threat to d e m o c r a c y a n d creativity
a r o u n d the w o r l d . 4 1

T h e i m p o r t a n t struggle is not b a n d s v e r s u s fans, or e v e n A O L Time

Warner v e r s u s pirates. It involves the efforts of the c o n t e n t industries to
create a " l e a k - p r o o f " sales a n d delivery s y s t e m , so t h e y c a n offer all
their p r o d u c t s as s t r e a m s of data triple sealed b y c o p y r i g h t , contract,
 182 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

a n d digital locks. T h e n t h e y c a n control access, use, a n d ultimately the

flow of ideas a n d expressions. T h e content industries h a v e b e e n clear
a b o u t their intentions to c h a r g e for e v e r y bit of data, s t a m p out the u s e d
C D m a r k e t , a n d crush libraries b y extinguishing fair u s e . In early J u l y
2 0 0 0 , A m e r i c a O n l i n e signed a deal w i t h a digital rights m a n a g e m e n t
system called InterTrust. InterTrust will p r o v i d e the e n c r y p t i o n a n d de-
cryption t e c h n o l o g y to A O L ' s software so that A O L users will e n d u r e
m e t e r e d a n d regulated u s e of digital m u s i c , film, text, a n d e v e r y t h i n g
else. A n d other digital m u s i c services are struggling to settle cases with
the record i n d u s t r y s o t h e y c a n " p a r t n e r " to install electronic "digital
rights m a n a g e m e n t " controls on their m u s i c . 42

T h e reason the culture industries c a n take a d v a n t a g e of the "digital

m o m e n t " to t r u m p the d e m o c r a t i c process a n d w r i t e their o w n l a w s is
that digital formats collapse the distinction b e t w e e n using material a n d
c o p y i n g material. B e c a u s e regulating reading or listening raises deep
First A m e n d m e n t c o n c e r n s , courts h a v e b e e n unwilling to do so until
now. H o w e v e r , c o p y r i g h t l a w regulates c o p y i n g . So digital distribution
allows a h i g h e r level of regulation t h a n w e e v e r i m a g i n e d . S o o n w e m a y
h a v e to a p p l y for a license to listen or read, a n d the rule of l a w will n o
longer apply. A m e r i c a O n l i n e will b e the c o p , jury, a n d j u d g e in matters
of copyright.

THE END OF COPYRIGHT?

In the s u m m e r of 2000, as the conflicts over N a p s t e r o c c u p i e d front

p a g e s of n e w s p a p e r s a n d m a g a z i n e s across the nation, the public
started a s k i n g itself s o m e difficult questions a b o u t the n a t u r e a n d fu-
ture of c o p y r i g h t . O n e of the m o s t interesting of these discussions h a p -
p e n e d in the on-line n e w s m a g a z i n e Slate, w h i c h is o w n e d b y the c o p y -
right-rich M i c r o s o f t C o r p o r a t i o n . Slate writer R o b e r t W r i g h t published
t w o pieces that a s k e d w h a t m u s i c a n d literature m i g h t l o o k like in a
" p o s t - c o p y r i g h t " age. W r i g h t w a s n o t willing to declare c o p y r i g h t dead
yet. H e still s a w that c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r s h a d w e a p o n s of e n f o r c e m e n t at
their c o m m a n d . But the t h o u g h t intrigued h i m . Flashing b a c k to J o h n
Perry B a r l o w ' s predictions f r o m 1 9 9 6 , Wright f o u n d that N a p s t e r a n d
other peer-to-peer n e t w o r k s m i g h t actually create the n e c e s s a r y liber-
tarian e n v i r o n m e n t that c o u l d render c o p y r i g h t irrelevant. W r i g h t p r e -
dicted that p e r f o r m e r s w o u l d b e pressed to a d d v a l u e t h r o u g h liveness,
 THE DIGITAL MOMENT 183

a n d t h r o u g h h i g h - q u a l i t y technical delivery, rather t h a n t h r o u g h the en-

forcement of a t e m p o r a r y m o n o p o l y o v e r content. If c o n s u m e r s w a n t
stuff, they c a n get it for free. If c o n s u m e r s w a n t g o o d stuff, t h e y will
h a v e to p a y for it. A n d in the b o o k industry, W r i g h t predicted that for
authors w h o c o u l d also p e r f o r m — m o t i v a t i o n a l speakers, for i n s t a n c e —
m o n e y w o u l d still b e f o r t h c o m i n g . T h e p o s t c o p y r i g h t e c o n o m y w o u l d
b e brutal to m a n y m u s i c i a n s a n d writers, a n d kind to others. W r i g h t did
not offer a sophisticated analysis of the role c o p y r i g h t plays in a d e m o -
cratic culture or the matrix of technological initiatives i n v o l v e d in the
issue. H e v i e w e d it o n l y in t e r m s of the financial r e w a r d for artists. B u t
the m o s t interesting observations c a m e from " T h e Fray," the on-line dis-
cussion that follows articles in Slate. M a n y readers w h o w r o t e in to " T h e
F r a y " w e r e u p s e t that Wright s e e m e d s o cavalier a b o u t the effects N a p -
ster m i g h t h a v e o n recording artists. O t h e r s w e r e i n d i g n a n t a b o u t the
a r r o g a n c e of the record c o m p a n i e s . S o m e readers declared that c o p y -
right w a s d e a d , so w e s h o u l d just forget a b o u t it a n d rejoice in the
prospect of a future w i t h o u t big m u s i c labels. O t h e r s declared c o p y r i g h t
u n t e n a b l e in the digital era a n d called for the strongest possible digital
protection s c h e m e s . Still others declared c o p y r i g h t a n a t u r a l right that
e m a n a t e s f r o m the act of artistic creation. N a p s t e r h a d g e n e r a t e d m o r e
than p a n i c a n d glee. It h a d s p a r k e d s o m e serious a n d s o m e t i m e s n u -
a n c e d discussion of c o p y r i g h t issues in the public s p h e r e . 43

Two years before N a p s t e r alerted the general p u b l i c to the t u r m o i l

w i t h i n the c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m , A m e r i c a n U n i v e r s i t y l a w professor Peter
Jaszi g a v e a s p e e c h h e called " I s This the E n d of C o p y r i g h t A s We K n o w
I t ? " In this talk, Jaszi a r g u e d that copyright w a s b e i n g displaced b y
three m u c h stronger, a l m o s t leakproof s y s t e m s that h e called " p s e u d o -
copyright," "paracopyright," and "metacopyright." "Pseudo-copy-
r i g h t " s t o o d for data protection efforts. " P a r a c o p y r i g h t " described the
technological locks that w o u l d s o o n encase m u c h digital content. A n d
" m e t a c o p y r i g h t " stood for the s y s t e m of contractual rights surrender.
Jaszi c o n c l u d e d that the A m e r i c a n tradition of " b a l a n c e d " c o p y r i g h t
h a d b e e n v e r y successful. H e credited it w i t h stimulating competition
a m o n g c o n t e n t c o m p a n i e s w h i l e n o u r i s h i n g a not-for-profit cultural
sector that includes libraries, universities, a n d think tanks. Jaszi did n o t
predict the d e m i s e of copyright. H e outlined the initiative that c o n t e n t
c o m p a n i e s h a d b e e n taking for years b e f o r e a n y o n e h a d d r e a m e d of
peer-to-peer distribution. T h e e n d of c o p y r i g h t w a s visible long before
the general p u b l i c b e c a m e a w a r e of i t . 44
 184 THE DIGITAL MOMENT

W h a t A m e r i c a n jurists like J a m e s M a d i s o n h a v e k n o w n for cen-

turies is that a l e a k y c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m w o r k s best. W h e n p r o p e r l y bal-
a n c e d , c o p y r i g h t allows users to enjoy the benefits of cultural prolifera-
tion at relatively l o w cost t h r o u g h a limited state-granted monopoly. Li-
braries h e l p that p r o c e s s b y letting the w e a l t h y s u b s i d i z e i n f o r m a t i o n
for the poor. A n d a thin, l e a k y copyright s y s t e m allows p e o p l e to c o m -
m e n t on c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s , m a k e copies for teaching a n d research, a n d
record their favorite p r o g r a m s for later v i e w i n g . Eventually, a c o p y r i g h t
runs out, a n d the w o r k enters the " p u b l i c d o m a i n " for all of us to enjoy
at a n e v e n lower cost. B u t w h e n constructed recklessly, copyright can
o n c e again b e a n i n s t r u m e n t of c e n s o r s h i p , just as it w a s b e f o r e the Stat-
ute of A n n e .
Epilogue
The Summer without Martha Graham

F O R S O M E G O O D reasons, w e c o u l d call the s u m m e r of 2000 " t h e

S u m m e r of N a p s t e r . " N o t a w e e k w e n t b y w h e n the R e v o l u t i o n a r y
m u s i c distribution s o f t w a r e did n o t g a r n e r h e a d l i n e s in the p o p u l a r
press. E v e r y o n e from college s t u d e n t s to the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Justice
w e i g h e d in o n the matter. B u t I prefer to r e m e m b e r 2000 as " t h e S u m -
mer without Martha Graham."
M a r t h a G r a h a m , w h o d i e d in 1991, w a s o n e of the m o s t influential
dancers a n d c h o r e o g r a p h e r s in the t w e n t i e t h century. S h e collaborated
with artists s u c h as sculptor I s a m u N o g u c h i a n d c o m p o s e r A a r o n C o p -
land, a n d is responsible for s u c h R e v o l u t i o n a r y w o r k s as Primitive Mys-
teries, Frontier, a n d h e r 1944 m a s t e r p i e c e , Appalachian Spring. 1

B e c a u s e of a n a s t y dispute b e t w e e n the M a r t h a G r a h a m D a n c e
C o m p a n y a n d R o n Protas, the director of the M a r t h a G r a h a m trust and
the p e r s o n w h o c l a i m s to control the c o p y r i g h t s o n G r a h a m ' s choreog-
raphy, the c o m p a n y w a s n o t able to p e r f o r m G r a h a m ' s w o r k through-
out the s u m m e r . Protas w o u l d n ' t license the w o r k to the c o m p a n y that
bears G r a h a m ' s n a m e . In response, the d a n c e r s in the c o m p a n y a s k e d
other d a n c e c o m p a n i e s to refrain from p e r f o r m i n g G r a h a m ' s w o r k s as
well. So the d a n c i n g s t o p p e d .
Is this w h a t w e w a n t o u r c o p y r i g h t s y s t e m to do? Isn't copyright
s u p p o s e d to e n c o u r a g e art? A n d isn't c o p y r i g h t s u p p o s e d to b e secured
o n l y " f o r limited t i m e s " ? Instead, m o r e a n d m o r e , excessive a n d a l m o s t
p e r p e t u a l c o p y r i g h t protection s e e m s to b e s q u e l c h i n g beauty, i m p e d -
ing e x p o s u r e , stifling creativity.
At first glance, it s e e m s that w e w e r e d e n i e d the b e a u t y of M a r t h a
G r a h a m ' s d a n c e s b e c a u s e of a series of p o o r l y t h o u g h t out c h a n g e s
in c o p y r i g h t l a w — s p e c i f i c a l l y the extension of the duration of c o p y -
right. Protection n o w c a n e x t e n d to the life of the author plus s e v e n t y
years. This extension d o e s n o t h i n g to p r o m o t e creativity. It r e w a r d s the

185
 186 EPILOGUE

established at the e x p e n s e of the e m e r g i n g . F r o m 1909 to 1978, artists

enjoyed c o p y r i g h t protection for a fixed t e r m of t w e n t y - e i g h t years.
T h e y c o u l d r e n e w the copyright for a n o t h e r t w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s if they
t h o u g h t there w a s still a m a r k e t for their w o r k . O n c e copyright expired,
a w o r k b e l o n g e d to all of u s . It entered the " p u b l i c d o m a i n . " A s their
copyrights expired, artists h a d a strong incentive to p r o d u c e n e w w o r k s
to m a k e m o n e y . Publishers c o u l d issue i n e x p e n s i v e editions of great
w o r k s . N e w artists c o u l d b o r r o w liberally for their o w n n e w creations.
But despite w h a t the C o n s t i t u t i o n s a y s , C o n g r e s s h a s d e c i d e d to e x t e n d
copyright protection for w h a t m i g h t as w e l l b e forever. This creates an
almost p e r p e t u a l m o n o p o l y o v e r creative w o r k s a n d starves the public
d o m a i n of r a w m a t e r i a l . 2

M a r t h a G r a h a m r e c o g n i z e d the v a l u e of the p u b l i c d o m a i n for the

creative p r o c e s s . She u s e d G r e e k m y t h s , N a t i v e A m e r i c a n l e g e n d s , a n d
the D e c l a r a t i o n of I n d e p e n d e n c e as r a w material for her d a n c e s . She
w e n t to the d e e p w e l l of cultural signs a n d tropes, a n d u s e d t h e m in
fresh a n d p o w e r f u l w a y s . A s dance scholar B r e n d a D i x o n Gottschild
explains, G r a h a m i n c o r p o r a t e d several specific African e l e m e n t s into
her style, i n c l u d i n g pelvic contortions a n d barefoot p e r f o r m a n c e . A n d
G r a h a m w a s v o c a l a b o u t her reliance on w h a t s h e called " p r i m i t i v e
sources," African and Native American cultures. 3

T h a t ' s h o w creativity h a p p e n s . Artists collaborate over s p a c e a n d

time, e v e n if they lived centuries a n d continents apart. P r o f o u n d cre-
ativity requires m a x i m u m e x p o s u r e to o t h e r s ' w o r k s a n d liberal free-
d o m s to reuse a n d r e s h a p e o t h e r s ' material. G r a h a m u n d e r s t o o d the
collaborative creative p r o c e s s better t h a n a n y l a w y e r or c o n g r e s s m a n
ever c o u l d . S h e clearly w a s n o t interested in fencing in h e r or a n y o n e
else's creativity.
In fact, G r a h a m n e v e r b o t h e r e d to register c o p y r i g h t s over m o s t of
her d a n c e s created before 1978. S h e filed to protect o n l y o n e — t h e 1946
tale of M e d e a entitled Cave of the Heart. So it turns out the s u m m e r w i t h -
out M a r t h a G r a h a m m i g h t n o t h a v e h a d to h a p p e n that way. T h e b e s t
of M a r t h a G r a h a m m i g h t just b e in the p u b l i c d o m a i n anyway. B u t b y
the t i m e l a w y e r s for the dance c o m p a n y discovered the lack of regis-
tration, it w a s too late. T h e c o m p a n y h a d c a n c e l e d its s u m m e r s h o w s in
the face of legal i n t i m i d a t i o n . 4

Reckless "intellectual p r o p e r t y " i n t i m i d a t i o n c a n h a v e n e a r l y the

s a m e effects in the culture as b a d laws can. D e s p i t e a clear U.S. S u p r e m e
C o u r t ruling in favor of the principle that p a r o d y is fair u s e , culture in-
 EPILOGUE 187

dustries a n d their l a w y e r s still s e e m to resist the i d e a . In J u l y 1999, jour-

nalist M i c h a e l C o l t o n p o s t e d a n Internet p a r o d y of Talk m a g a z i n e ,
w h i c h is a partnership b e t w e e n Hearst M a g a z i n e s a n d Walt D i s n e y -
o w n e d M i r a m a x F i l m s . M i r a m a x l a w y e r s sent a cease-and-desist letter
to Earthlink, the Internet c o m p a n y that o w n e d the server on w h i c h the
p a r o d y sat. Earthlink i m m e d i a t e l y s h u t d o w n the parody. It restored the
site o n l y after Talk editor Tina B r o w n a p p e a l e d to the M i r a m a x legal de-
p a r t m e n t to let the p a r o d y stand. B e c a u s e of w i d e s p r e a d m i s u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g of copyright law, cease-and-desist letters carry inordinate cul-
tural p o w e r a n d c a n chill if n o t directly c e n s o r e x p r e s s i o n . 5

C o r p o r a t e l e g a l i n t i m i d a t i o n h a s e v e n chilled political s p e e c h .
W h i l e r u n n i n g for reelection in the s p r i n g of 1 9 9 9 , D a l l a s m a y o r R o n
K i r k aired a r a d i o c o m m e r c i a l that u s e d the w o r d s " F o u r y e a r s a g o ,
w e c h o s e K i r k c a p t a i n of t h e D a l l a s e n t e r p r i s e . Well f o u r y e a r s later,
D a l l a s h a s b e c o m e t h e c e n t e r of t h e e n t e r p r i s e . W i t h the largest capi-
tal b o n d p r o g r a m in t h e h i s t o r y of D a l l a s , a h a l f a billion d o l l a r s , the
Trinity toll (road) a n d t h e n e w a r e n a a d d u p to b e a S t a r s h i p E n t e r -
p r i s e . " T h e c o m m e r c i a l also s a m p l e d t h e v o i c e of W i l l i a m S h a t n e r
s a y i n g , " S p a c e , the final f r o n t i e r . " L a w y e r s f r o m P a r a m o u n t P i c t u r e s
t h r e a t e n e d the c a m p a i g n w i t h a c e a s e - a n d - d e s i s t letter. T h e c a m p a i g n
capitulated. 6
A n d in A u g u s t 2 0 0 0 , G r e e n P a r t y p r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i -
date Ralph Nader parodied a MasterCard advertisement by issuing a
television a d v e r t i s e m e n t s a y i n g : " G r i l l e d t e n d e r l o i n for fund-raiser,
$1,000 a plate; c a m p a i g n a d s filled w i t h h a l f - t r u t h s , $10 million;
p r o m i s e s to s p e c i a l interest g r o u p s , o v e r $10 billion; f i n d i n g o u t the
truth, p r i c e l e s s . " M a s t e r C a r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , filed a f e d e r a l suit
s e e k i n g a n i n j u n c - t i o n a g a i n s t the c a m p a i g n . T h e suit c l a i m e d t r a d e -
mark infringement and unfair competition, but not a copyright viola-
tion. N a d e r e v e n t u a l l y p r e v a i l e d i n court. W h i l e n e i t h e r of t h e s e p o -
litical cases w o u l d fall u n d e r t h e p a r o d y - a s - f a i r - u s e d e f e n s e for a
c o p y r i g h t c a s e , t h e y b o t h s h o w h o w c h i l l i n g l y vigilant the c o n t e n t in-
dustries h a v e g r o w n in r e c e n t y e a r s . T h e s e c o m p a n i e s f i r m l y b e l i e v e
courts s h o u l d s i d e w i t h their p r o p r i e t a r y interests o v e r t h o s e of the
electorate. A t the t u r n of the t w e n t y - f i r s t century, i n v o k i n g " i n t e l l e c -
tual p r o p e r t y " is as g o o d a s u s i n g a t r u m p c a r d in p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e .
All d i s c u s s i o n a n d d e b a t e s t o p s . 7

F o l l o w i n g a strategy m o r e pernicious t h a n m e r e intimidation,

m e d i a c o m p a n i e s are actually pursuing legal action to stifle criticism
of t h e m s e l v e s . T h e y are also using copyright suits to squelch clearly
 188 EPILOGUE

political s p e e c h . In O c t o b e r of 1998, the Washington Post a n d the Los An-

geles Times filed suit against a c o n s e r v a t i v e n e w s f o r u m w e b site called
F r e e R e p u b l i c . c o m . M e m b e r s of the g r o u p h a d b e e n pasting stories from
various n e w s p a p e r s a n d annotating t h e m , c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e m . T h e s e
n e w s p a p e r s b r o u g h t legal action as a n effort to control distribution of
the w e b site's potentially v a l u a b l e digital content. O t h e r n e w s p a p e r s ,
including the Wall Street Journal a n d the New York Times, h a v e signed
contracts w i t h a c o m p a n y called the C o p y r i g h t C l e a r a n c e C e n t e r s o that
it c a n meter, c h a r g e for, a n d regulate distribution of their digital con-
tent. T h e C o p y r i g h t C l e a r a n c e C e n t e r w e b site b o a s t s , " C C C ' s n e w s o -
lution lets publishers a n d o t h e r content o w n e r s d e t e r m i n e the types of
reuse they w i s h to license. T h e y decide w h e t h e r to license use of their
materials in electronic m e d i a s u c h as e-mail, Internet, Intranet or C D -
R O M ; or in print m e d i a s u c h as reprints or for republication. C o p y r i g h t
holders c a n also specify distinct rights, t e r m s a n d conditions for differ-
ent pieces of c o n t e n t . " In other w o r d s , all electronic access, c o p y i n g , a n d
redistribution will require p e r m i s s i o n a n d p a y m e n t . T h e r e will b e n o
fair u s e of electronic n e w s stories from the Boston Globe, the New York
Times, Barron's, or the Wall Street Journal, a r g u a b l y the m o s t i m p o r t a n t
n e w s sources in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 8

In the 1970s, t h a n k s to c o v e r a g e of the Watergate scandal a n d the

P e n t a g o n P a p e r s , the New York Times a n d the Washington Post w e r e con-
sidered h e r o e s for free s p e e c h a n d a free press. N o w , as major " c o n t e n t
p r o v i d e r s " in the n e w digital economy, they are p a r t of the p r o b l e m .
T h e y are p r i v a t e copyright c o p s . A n d citizens w h o w i s h to gather, dis-
cuss, d e b a t e , a n d criticize m u s t d o so w i t h o n e fearful eye o n the front
door, w a i t i n g for the cease-and-desist letter.
R e c e n t e x p a n s i o n s of c o p y r i g h t p o w e r h a v e clearly stifled artistic
creativity as w e l l . V l a d i m i r N a b o k o v ' s son, D m i t r i N a b o k o v , s u c c e e d e d
in t e m p o r a r i l y b l o c k i n g A m e r i c a n publication of Pia P e r a ' s n o v e l L o s
Diary, a revision of Lolita from the voice a n d p o i n t of v i e w of the y o u n g
girl. After s o m e tense negotiation, D m i t r i N a b o k o v a g r e e d to allow
publication as l o n g as the A m e r i c a n edition c o n t a i n e d a n a s t y preface
b y the son. " I s Lolita to p a y this price [the i n d i g n i t y of a t r a n s f o r m a t i v e
w o r k ] b e c a u s e it is too g o o d , too f a m o u s ? Are writers to strive for m e d i -
ocrity lest their w o r k s similarly enter the ' c o m m o n c o n s c i o u s n e s s ' ? A r e
icons of p o p u l a r culture—Star Wars p e r h a p s — t o b e m a d e subject to
p l u n d e r i n g b y free riders b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e entered the c o m m o n con-
s c i o u s n e s s ? " the y o u n g e r N a b o k o v w r o t e in the p r e f a c e . Interestingly,
9
 EPILOGUE 189

Star Wars screenwriter G e o r g e L u c a s " p l u n d e r e d " the w o r k of J o s e p h

C a m p b e l l a n d the m y t h s of the collective public d o m a i n . Despite such
an overt a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d reliance o n others for his material, L u c a s
himself h a s u s e d l a w y e r s to i n t i m i d a t e Star Wars fans w h o distribute
their o w n u n a u t h o r i z e d f a n z i n e s . 10
D e s p i t e entertaining s u c h a narrow,
elitist v i e w of the creative p r o c e s s , D m i t r i N a b o k o v h a d the l a w o n his
side. C o p y r i g h t l a w grants estates control over t r a n s f o r m a t i v e uses of
their fictional characters. But is this g o o d ? Isn't the w o r l d better off with
m o r e t h a n o n e perspective on the iconic yet controversial Lolita story?
W o u l d n ' t creativity flower if unfettered b y fears of petty lawsuits b y
relatives w h o contributed n o t h i n g to the creative process in the first
place? W h a t public interest does it serve to enrich the heirs of Irving
Berlin, V l a d i m i r N a b o k o v , M a r t h a G r a h a m , or Gilbert O'Sullivan?
W h i c h s y s t e m w o u l d better p r o m o t e art: o n e in w h i c h a n y o n e w i t h a
g o o d idea for a J a m e s B o n d story c o u l d c o m p e t e in the m a r k e t p l a c e of
ideas for a n a u d i e n c e or o n e in w h i c h those w h o control Ian F l e m i n g ' s
literary estate c a n p r e v e n t a n y o n e f r o m p l a y i n g w i t h his toys? A looser
copyright s y s t e m w o u l d p r o d u c e m o r e J a m e s B o n d b o o k s , n o t fewer.
S o m e m i g h t b e excellent. O t h e r m i g h t b e crappy. Publishers a n d read-
ers c o u l d sort out the difference for t h e m s e l v e s . T h e l a w n e e d n o t s k e w
the b a l a n c e as it has.
But there is h o p e in this story. All this talk of m o d e r n d a n c e s and
M P 3 files a l l o w s us to h a v e a n a t i o n a l — p e r h a p s g l o b a l — c o n v e r s a t i o n
about w h a t sort of c o p y r i g h t p o l i c y w e w a n t to live w i t h in the t w e n t y -
first century. C o p y r i g h t policy s h o u l d h e l p — n o t h i n d e r — t h e n e x t
Metallica, the n e x t M a r t i n S c o r s e s e , the n e x t V l a d i m i r N a b o k o v , the
next M a r t h a G r a h a m .
M a y b e s o m e s u m m e r n o t too m a n y years from n o w a y o u n g
w o m a n will enjoy a p e r f o r m a n c e of Appalachian Spring a n d will b e in-
spired to b o r r o w f r o m it to construct a life of creativity a n d beauty.
T h a t ' s h o w M a r t h a G r a h a m w o u l d h a v e w a n t e d it.
Notes

NOTES TO THE I N T R O D U C T I O N

1. Groucho Marx to Warner Brothers, undated, 1944, Groucho Marx Pa-

pers, Library of Congress. Also published in Marx, The Groucho Letters: Letters to
and from Groucho Marx (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967).
2. Marx to Warner Brothers.
3. Marx, Groucho Letters, pp. 17-18
4. The best explanation of the democratic basis for copyright law is Neil
Weinstock Netanel, "Copyright and Democratic Civil Society," in Yale Law Jour-
nal (November 1996). Also see Mark Lemley "The Economics of Improvement
in Intellectual Property Law," in Texas Law Review (April 1997); Peter Jaszi, "On
the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective Creativity," in
Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, eds., The Construction of Authorship: Tex-
tual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994);
James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Infor-
mation Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996); J. H. Reichman and
Pamela Samuelson, "Intellectual Property Rights in Data?" Vanderbilt Law Re-
view 0anuary 1997): 49-166.
5. Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An
Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991). Also see
Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1978). For an introduction to Habermas's contributions to the broad ma-
trix of recent critical theory, see Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm and Utopia: A
Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory (New York: Columbia University Press,
1986). For assessments of Habermas's critiques of postmodern antifoundation-
alism, see Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib, eds., Habermas and
the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997). According to Habermas, the "public
sphere" includes the aspects of social life in which public opinion is formed.
Ideally, access to the public sphere should be as democratic as possible, open to
all citizens. In reality, some members of the public are louder than others, am-
plified by money, credentials, or reputation. Others are silenced by virtue of
poverty, marginalized identities, or opinions. Interaction within the public
sphere is distinct from legislative, commercial, or professional discourse, and

191
 192 NOTES TO THE I N T R O D U C T I O N

participants are free from coercion. Since the eighteenth century, instruments
such as newspapers, magazines, town meetings, radio, television, and the In-
ternet have operated as the sites of public interaction. But events such as dinner
parties and barbecues can serve just as easily as loci for the public sphere. The
purpose of the public sphere is to mediate between state and society. While in-
dividuals and interest groups can form opinions and promulgate them to the
public, they cannot create "public opinion" without free, open, and informed
dialogue exercised within the public sphere. As Europe shifted its decision-
making habits from the private spheres of feudal states to the more public en-
virons of bourgeois society, the public sphere emerged. Without such a sphere,
republics could not have claimed legitimacy in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. These sociopolitical shifts were especially powerful in North Ameri-
can colonies in the 1770s and France in the 1780s, when citizens published—at
their own expense—periodicals that advocated their views on matters of pub-
lic policy and philosophy. But by the 1830s in the United States, many of the in-
struments of the bourgeois public sphere had started changing into purely com-
mercial enterprises that facilitated "public relations" more than they forged
consensus or "public opinion," starting a long process of what Habermas calls
"the structural transformation of the public sphere." As a result of this trans-
formation, state and commercial institutions have assumed some of the func-
tions of the public sphere, and political institutions, such as parties, assume
advocacy roles in support of their patrons. Habermas complains that this trans-
formation has led to a "refeudalization" of the public sphere. Large and pow-
erful organizations such as corporations, labor unions, political parties, profes-
sional groups, and interest groups bargain with the state and one another—
often out of sight or mind of the public—to allocate resources, opportunities,
and patronage. These institutions still seek public support and the marks of le-
gitimacy, but they do this through the exercise of publicity or public relations,
not necessarily through contributions to rich public discourse. Whenever an au-
thentic public sphere appeared in the late twentieth century, it did so in an ad
hoc fashion, before a specific election or within realms outside of state or com-
mercial influence, such as electronic discussions during the early years of the In-
ternet. These occasional acts of publicness usually occur only with the tacit con-
sent of the interest groups that transformed the public sphere in the first place
and are therefore limited by the public's unwillingness to antagonize these
powers.
6. Michael Warner, The Letters of the Re-public: Publication and the Public
Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1990). An essential corrective to Warner's bold thesis, and one that considers the
ramifications of the development of copyright law, is Grantland S. Rice, The
Transformation of Authorship in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1997).
 NOTES TO THE I N T R O D U C T I O N 193

7. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Macmillan, 1922). My un-

derstanding of the Lippmann-Dewey debates comes from several valuable dis-
cussions I have had the pleasure of having with James Carey and Jay Rosen. See
Carey, Communication as Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 74-82.
8. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (New York: Henry Holt and Co.,
1927), p. 219.
9. Cathy N. Davidson, Revolution and the Word: The Rise of the Novel in Amer-
ica (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). Also see Woodmansee and Jaszi;
Boyle; David Sanjek, '"Don't Have to DJ No More': Sampling and the Au-
tonomous Creator," in Woodmansee and Jaszi; Mark Rose, Authors and Owners:
The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).
10. Roland Barthes, "The Death of the Author," in Image-Music-Text (New
York: Hill and Wang, 1977), pp. 142-48.
11. Michel Foucault, "What Is an Author?" in Josue Harari, ed., Textual
Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1979), pp. 141-60. While this analysis of an "author-function" is very use-
ful, especially when trying to make sense of how copyright law operates in
western culture, Foucault's essay offers a historical analysis that is suspect. Un-
fortunately, many critics and historians writing after Foucault have taken his
analysis as gospel, without checking to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Foucault
briefly outlined a story of the "author-function" in western culture that starts
with a time in which there were writers, yet no "authors." Because Foucault's
"author" is an author only because it (a function, not a person) has legal and
cultural status and power, an "author" could not exist before the eighteenth
century, when the first legal codifications of authorship emerged from Euro-
pean courts and parliaments. This invention has been dubbed "Romantic au-
thorship," and the standard scholarly line since the publication of Foucault's
essay concedes Foucault's intellectual power and accepts his definition uncriti-
cally. However, the cultural power and "authority" that Foucault describes
could have and did precede their legal codification. This book is not the proper
place to explore the accuracy, uses, and misuses of Foucault's historical claims,
but I would urge others to search for examples of the "author-function" that
precede 1709. The Apostles, Bhagavan Vyasa ("author-function" of the Mahab-
harata) and English Puritan ministers might be good places to start. Vyasa's au-
thorship of the Mahabharata is a fascinating example in the history of author-
ship. Unlike many to whom authorship of religious texts has been ascribed,
such as Mary Baker Eddy, Vyasa was not an earthly scribe for divine words. In-
stead, the sage enlisted the help (and four arms) of Lord Ganesha as a scribe for
Vyasa's narration of the struggle between the Pandavas and the Kauravas and
the battle of Kurukshetra. The deal Ganesha struck with Vyasa, however, re-
quired the sage to relate the tale in one sitting. If not for this condition, the epic
poem might have been even longer. Vyasa, a Brahmin sage who commanded
 194 NOTES TO THE I N T R O D U C T I O N

the elephantine ears of the gods, had and has cultural power, to say the least. He
and his Brahman descendants have exercised this power for centuries. Vyasa's
role as author of the ninth-century B.C. story matches all of Foucault's criteria
for an "author-function." This example of narrative technique demands further
examination. See C. Rajagopalachari, Mahabharata (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan, 1978).
12. Mark Lemley, "Book Review—Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric
of Property," in Texas Law Review (March 1997): 873-906.
13. Donaldson v. Becket, House of Lords, 1774, in Parliamentary History of
England, 17: 953.
14. Lemley, "Book Review—Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of
Property," p. 895.
15. Henry Louis Gates, The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African American
Literary Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 66. Gates iden-
tifies how the anxiety of influence affected opinions of African and African
American expression. Gates notes that David Hume and Thomas Jefferson both
accused blacks of being merely imitative rather than creative.
16. Zora Neale Hurston, "Characteristics of Negro Expression" in The
Sanctified Church (Berkeley: Turtle Island, 1981), pp. 59-60. Also in Gena Dagel
Caponi, ed., Signifyin', Sanctifyin', and Slam Dunking: A Reader in African Ameri-
can Expressive Culture (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999).

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

1. Adam Moore, ed., Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International

Dilemmas (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), pp. 4 - 6 . For a succinct
explanation of the issues surrounding the attempted patenting of the human
genome, see Siva Vaidhyanathan, "Human Genome," in Ready Reference: Cen-
sorship (Pasadena: Salem Press, 1997). Patent law emanates from the same sec-
tion of the U.S. Constitution that empowers Congress to protect copyrights, art.
1, sec. 8. The federal patent law is Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. sec. 101 (1998). Congress
added three years to the duration of patent protection in 1995, raising it from
seventeen to twenty years.
2. Rosemary Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship,
Appropriation, and the Law (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 60.
3. Moore, p. 6. See The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, sec. 39
(1995). See Forest Laboratories Inc. v. Pillsbury Co., 453 F. 2d 621 (7th cir. 1971).
4. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1985),
p. 304.
5. Harold Nelson and Dwight Teeter, Law of Mass Communications, 4th ed.
(Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1982), pp. 251-261. For a summary of theoret-
ical attacks on the valorization of authorship, see Sean Burke, The Death and Re-
 NOTES TO CHAPTER I 195

turn of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida (Ed-
inburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992). For the influence of postmodern
art on copyright theory, see Lynne A. Greenberg, "The Art of Appropriation:
Puppies, Piracy, and Post-modernism," in Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law
Journal (1992). For the effects of sampling in rap music on copyright, see David
Sanjek, '"Don't Have to DJ No More': Sampling and the Autonomous Creator,"
in Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, eds., The Construction of Authorship: Tex-
tual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994).
For a general historical account of the development of copyright, see Lyman
Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville: Vanderbilt Univer-
sity Press, 1968).
6. James Madison, Federalist 43, in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
and John Jay, The Federalist (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1961), p. 309.
7. The republican virtues of copyright are best explained by Neil Wein-
stock Netanel, "Copyright and Democratic Civil Society," Yale Law Journal (No-
vember 1996): 356-86. Washington is quoted in Netanel, p. 357.
8. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, July 31,1788, in The Writings
of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7 (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association,
1904), pp. 93-99.
9. Jefferson to Madison, Paris, August 28,1789, in The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, 7:444-53.
10. Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13,1813, in The Writ-
ings of Thomas Jefferson, 13:326-38. Louis Brandeis wrote (dissenting) in Interna-
tional News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215,250 (1918).
11. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct.
1282,113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991).
12. Victor A. Doyno, Writing Huck Finn: Mark Twain's Creative Process (Phil-
adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), pp. 185-98. Also see Aubert
J. Clark, The Movement for International Copyright in Nineteenth Century America
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1960).
13. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1164 (1994).
14. Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from
Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), pp. 129-64.
15. Melville B. Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright, 3d ed. (St. Paul:
West Publishing Co., 1985), p. 27
16. Gen. 22:2
17. Bob Dylan, "Highway 61 Revisited," from Highway 61 Revisited (New
York: Columbia Records/CBS, 1965), side 2.
18. Jonathan Kirsch, Kirsch's Handbook of Publishing Law for Authors, Pub-
lishers, Editors, and Agents (Los Angeles: Acrobat Books, 1995), pp. 7-8.
19. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong. 2d. Sess. 56-57 (1976).
20. Baker v. Seiden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
 196 NOTES TO CHAPTER I

21. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct.
1282,113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991). O'Connor is quoting from Harper & Row, Publish-
ers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985).
22. Gen. 4:8.
23. I wish I could ask readers to indulge me in a brief explanation of the
search for meaning as it has consumed three of the most influential linguistic
philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: Ferdinand de Saussure,
Jacques Derrida, and Charles Sanders Peirce. However, it would take many
pages and I would make many mistakes. For insight into how Saussure's
theories of signs work, see Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles
Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1959). Saussure's structuralism inspired many of the most important thinkers of
the twentieth century including Claude Lévi-Strauss, Emile Durkheim, and
Thomas Kuhn. Others have reworked or revised Saussure's structuralism. They
include Roland Barthes, Stanley Fish, Umberto Eco, and Michel Foucault. Der-
rida offered the most sweeping revisions of structuralism. See Derrida, Writing
and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
Also see Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1974). Derrida, more than anyone, collapsed the
space between the sign and the signified. However, he relied on the dyadic
model of signs that Saussure generated at the beginning of the century. Thanks
to the recent work of John K. Sheriff, Stephen Knapp, and Walter Benn Michaels,
Peirce's linguistic models have returned to "save" meaning as a pragmatic con-
cept, and for that I am greatly indebted. Peirce, a contemporary of Saussure,
imagined a triadic model of signs, objects, and "interprétants." See Sheriff, The
Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1989). Also see Knapp and Michaels, "Against Theory," in
Critical Inquiry (summer 1982).
24. Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence," in David Hollinger and
Charles Capper, eds., The American Intellectual Tradition, 2d ed. (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 1993), 1:131.
25. Charles C. Mann, "Who Will Own Your Next Good Idea?" Atlantic
Monthly, September 1998, pp. 57-63.
26. See Amy Wallace, "It's Lights! Camera! Lawyers?" Los Angeles Times,
Dec. 10,1997, p. A l (thanks to Kent Rasmussen for sending me a clip of this ar-
ticle). See Art Buchwald et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 706083. Both Coming to America
and Eddie Murphy's first film, Trading Places (1983), were directed by John Lan-
dis and are variations on Mark Twain's comedy of manners The Prince and the
Pauper (1882), which itself has antecedents in folklore. See Twain, The Prince and
the Pauper (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). For an example of subse-
quent "idea protection" suits, some appealing to copyright law, see Woods v.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 197

Universal City Studios, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 62, Central District of California, 1995.
The case involving Seven, which ended in favor of the studio, is Sandoval v. New
Line Cinema Corp., 973 F. Supp. 409, Southern District of New York, 1997.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

1. William Dean Howells, My Mark Twain: Reminiscences and Criticisms, ed.

Marilyn Austin Baldwin (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967),
p. 80.
2. "Twain's Fancy Suit: Noted Humorist at Capitol in Cream-Colored Cos-
tume," Washington Post, Dec. 8, 1906, p. 1. Also see "Mark Twain in White
Amuses Congressmen: Advocates New Copyright Law and Dress Reform,"
New York Times, Dec. 8,1906. For an analysis of Twain's costume and perform-
ance at the hearings, see Susan Gillman, Dark Twins: Imposture and Identity in
Mark Twain's America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 181-88.
3. Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville: Van-
derbilt University Press, 1968), p. 2. The accounts throughout this chapter owe
their origins to Patterson's early work. For a lighter account of early copyright
with a larger historical sweep of recent American copyright changes, see Pat-
terson and Stanley Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of User's Rights
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991). The most important recent histori-
cal revelations about early copyright can be found in a seminal law review arti-
cle, Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," in Wayne Law Review, (spring
1983): 1119-89. The best historical rendering of the changes in copyright policy
in the United Kingdom is John Feather, Publishing, Piracy, and Politics: An His-
torical Study of Copyright in Britain (London: Mansell Publishing, 1994). Also see
Harry Ransom, The First Copyright Statute: An Essay on an Act for the Encourage-
ment of Learning, 1709 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1956). Also see Ran-
som, "The Theory of Literary Property: 1760-1775," Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
1938. Another well-written historical account of early copyright debates can be
found in Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from
Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994). While Gold-
stein's recent opinions about the goals of copyright policy are disturbing, he is
a talented writer and one of the world's top authorities on copyright law. John
Tebbel, A History of Book Publishing in the United States, 2 vols. (New York: R. R.
Bowker, 1972), offers a broad but shallow account of early copyright efforts in
both the colonies and the early republic, but his bias is toward copyright as a
natural or property right, and he evades or misses the antimonopolistic philos-
ophy that tempered American copyright law for more than a century. Tebbel
does not see perpetual monopoly control as a threat to democratic speech.
Tebbel's biggest problem, however, is that he seems completely unaware of
 198 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

British copyright law, even of the Statute of Anne of 1709, which clearly inspired
the titles and timbre of early American law. A brilliant treatise on British copy-
right in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from a postmodern perspec-
tive, is Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1993). Rose is inspired by Foucault and other recent
theorists, yet does not rely on theory for easy answers. The best account of the
struggles for international copyright is still a brilliant dissertation, Aubert J.
Clark, The Movement for International Copyright in Nineteenth Century America
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1960). Clark's only
major flaw is that the dissertation is embedded with Thomistic natural law the-
ories of property rights. Clark's attachment to natural law does not allow him
to consider the policy balances and interest group battles that determined copy-
right policy throughout the century. To his credit, Clark does not, as most pub-
lishing historians do, blame resistance to international copyright and expanded
copyright protection on some mysterious "anti-intellectualism" among the
American public and its leaders.
4. Abrams, pp. 1135-37. Also see Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of
Copyright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 5, and Patterson,
pp. 65-69. This is not so different from the rights acquisition process that op-
erated in the late twentieth century, except that now copyright is considered a
"bundle" of rights, and an author can negotiate to sell all or one of those li-
censes to exclusively distribute the work. For instance, an author can sell her
work as a "work for hire" to a company, which would then own all the rights
to it in all media for a ninety-five-year term. Or an author can sell one seg-
ment of that bundle, such as hardcover book rights, while retaining serial
rights, film rights, CD-ROM rights, audio tape rights, etc. If the author re-
serves the copyright in her name, the copyright will last seventy years past
her death. In either case, the publishing company, for all practical purposes,
controls the printing, marketing, design, and distribution of the material, and
the author has only contractual guarantees that her wishes will be heeded.
Even in modern copyright, the publisher, not the author, is the key player in
the legal and commercial marketplace.
5. Patterson, pp. 130-42.
6. Tebbel, 1:45.
7. Tebbel, 1:46
8. William Hening, The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of
Virginia, vol. 2 (Wilmington, Dl.: Michael Glazier, 1978), p. 518
9. Patterson, pp. 120-130.
10. Quoted in Kaplan, p. 7, and Abrams, p. 1139.
11. Patterson, p. 142.
12. Patterson, pp. 142-45. Ransom called the Statute of Anne "the first
copyright law," because it was the first statute to overtly recognize authorship.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 199

However, more sophisticated readings of the historical record by Kaplan, Pat-

terson, and Abrams have yielded the conclusion that the Statute of Anne was a
symptom of change in the political and commercial climates, but not a funda-
mental change from previous law. For an elaboration of the misnamed "Lock-
ean" theory of copyright, see Grantland Rice, The Transformation of Authorship in
America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 70-96. For an expla-
nation of how Locke's thought does not in fact necessarily support maximum
copyright protection, see Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Al-
dershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1996), pp. 47-72. Fear of monopolies
was one of the greatest concerns of the liberals who were exercising increased
influence on the British political scene in the late seventeenth and early eigh-
teenth centuries. John Locke, who is sometimes unfairly associated with maxi-
mum-protection philosophies of copyright because his theories of real property
are misapplied to copyright, was one of the strongest critics of both censorship
and monopoly power—both of which were the purposes of the Stationers'
Company practice and the licensing acts. In 1709, copyright was not about
property, it was about control.
13. For a lucid description of the tensions between the common law and
statutory law, see Richard Posner, The Economics of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1981), pp. 13-47. In this chapter, Posner describes the conflicts
between William Blackstone and Jeremy Bentham. But Posner is too harsh on
poor Bentham. Posner describes Bentham as having such a passionate attach-
ment to radical parliamentary reform, representative democracy, and harsh
utilitarianism that Bentham's principles could somehow justify fascism. Ben-
tham's devout liberalism (which did need clarification by John Stuart Mill and
others) seems not to have allayed Posner's concerns. Posner also avoids con-
sideration of Blackstone's investment in a political status quo that was far from
liberal, and not too far from authoritarian. Until the Reform Acts of the nine-
teenth century, British electoral practices were unrepresentative, corrupt, and
stacked against free trade and free speech. Bentham, John Locke, James Mill,
John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith chipped away at the intellectual foundation
of the conservative status quo that Blackstone embraced, yet Posner's chapter
does not give these thinkers credit for outlining the classical liberal principles
that Posner himself has spent his career invoking and defending. Still, the chap-
ter is a magnificent introduction to Blackstone's work, and serves as an effective
way to understand the dynamics of the common law. See William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England (Buntingford: Layston Press, 1966). For a
more muddled account of the development of common law, see Norman Can-
tor, Imagining the Law: Common Law and the Foundations of the American Legal Sys-
tem (New York: HarperCollins, 1997). Also see Lawrence Friedman, American
Law (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), p. 16. An essential text to understanding
how American common law differs from English is that of Oliver Wendell
 200 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

Holmes Jr., T7ie Common Law (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1963). Also see Ben-
jamin Kaplan, Patrick Atiyah, and Jan Vetter, Holmes and the Common Law: A
Century Later (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981). Also see Edward G.
White, justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Seif (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993).
14. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Lasiert (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp. 303-20. As stated above, Locke himself
never applied his "mixing metaphor" or his theory of property to copyright.
But since it was far from settled in the late seventeenth century that copyright
was a property right, it is unfair to infer that Locke would have considered it so.
15. Goldstein, pp. 44-46.
16. Millar v. Taylor, in Burr (4th ed.), p. 2303,98 English Reports, p. 201 (K.B.
1769). See Abrams, pp. 1152-54.
17. Abrams, pp. 1156-71. Abrams shows that historians and judges have
consistently misread the documentation from Donaldson v. Becket and incor-
rectly ruled that there was a common law copyright, but the Statute of Anne
supplanted it. In fact, Abrams shows, the House of Lords rejected the idea that
there ever had been a common law copyright. Had the historical record been
clearer, perhaps the theory behind copyright would be clearly in favor of a
strong and broad public domain.
18. Tebbel, 1:138-41.
19. U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8. Both James Madison and Charles Pinck-
ney introduced versions of the copyright and patent clause. The convention ap-
proved the plank unanimously without debate or dissent. See Jonathan Elliot,
ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Con-
stitution, vol. 5 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1836), p. 440.
20. James Madison, Number 43: "Powers Delegated to the General Gov-
ernment: III," in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Feder-
alist, ed. Benjamin F. Wright (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1961), p. 309.
21. Noah Webster, "Origin of the Copy-Right Laws," in A Collection of Pa-
pers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster & Clark, 1843).
Also see Harry Warfel, Noah Webster: Schoolmaster to America (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1936), pp. 54-60,184-85,393.
22. Hellmut Lehman-Haupt, Tlie Book in America (New York: R. R. Bowker
Co., 1951), pp. 56, 74-85.
23. Clark,, pp. 30-31. Also see Frank Luther Mott, Golden Multitudes (New
York: Macmillan Co., 1947).
24. Harry Ransom, The First Copyright Statute; Ruth Finnegan, Oral Litera-
ture in Africa (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 9. For an account of
Martial's complaint about plagium, see Goldstein, Copyright's Highway, p. 39.
25. Rose, p. 1. Mark Rose, in his book Authors and Owners: The Invention of
Copyright, describes the rise of the author class and the ways it defined itself
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 201

within the terms of the liberal notions of property. Rose argues that the distin-
guishing characteristic of the modern author is proprietorship, not originality
or genius. The author is defined as the originator of the work, and that role as
originator generates status as an owner of the work. The historiography of "au-
thorship" in America is complex and controversial. See Cathy N. Davidson,
Revolution and the Word: The Rise of the Novel in America (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1986), pp. 29-30. Also see Michel Foucault, "What Is an Author?"
in Josue Harari, ed.,Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism,
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979). In her otherwise excellent history of
early American novels and their readership, Davidson asserts that American
authorship as an intellectual and economic force was absent just after the Rev-
olution. "The early national era antedated the romantic period's notions of the
author as the prime creator of art and a concomitant critical privileging of the
artist's intentions," Davidson writes. For evidence that the author is merely a
creation of the romantic period, Davidson cites Foucault's essay "What Is an
Author?" This essay, while important, is hardly sufficient evidence for such a
sweeping statement about authorship in the early republic. Authorship is much
older than the romantic movement. While British romantics did promote the
idea of authorial genius to pass a new copyright law, they did not "invent" the
concept. Literary theorists and historians often confuse this political action with
a literary phenomenon, and they simply cite Foucault's essay as proof. But Fou-
cault had no way of knowing, for instance, about the preamble to the North
Carolina Copyright Act of 1785, which read: "Whereas nothing is more strictly
a man's own than the fruit of his study, and it is proper that men should be en-
couraged to pursue useful knowledge by the hope of reward; and as the secu-
rity of literary property must greatly tend to encourage genius . . ." Authorship
was not a product of the romantic era. It just reached its apex of marketability
and political power in the romantic era. The western notion of authorship, as
Ransom noted, is much older than the eighteenth or nineteenth century. David-
son is correct, however, in explaining that American authors were certainly less
powerful and had less "cultural capital" in the early nineteenth century than
they had soon after. Certainly, by the last quarter of the nineteenth century,
American publishing was a big international business and some authors were
emerging as stars. The battles that forged modern copyright doctrines were fi-
nancial and political, not literary and philosophical. Only when authors had
money and political power could they fight the battle, and the valorization of
the author was merely a weapon. See Patterson, p. 187, and Rose, p. 8.
26. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Peters) 591 (January 1834). Legal historian
Lyman Ray Patterson described the multiple and often conflicting goals of
American copyright laws in the early republic. On the one hand, state copyright
statutes under the Articles of Confederation declared that copyright was to
benefit the author primarily. Yet the U.S. Constitution states that copyright is
 202 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

necessary for learning and is a public good. The first federal copyright act saw
it as a governmental grant or privilege. And that copyright was meant to pre-
vent or limit a dangerous monopoly was central to the case of Wheaton v. Peters,
the first major American copyright decision.
27. Rose, pp. 111-12
28. Rose, pp. 6 and 110-11. It was clear by 1842 that the British author
was powerful. The writing community sowed the seeds of valorization, and
the intellectual ground was fertile. Rose explains that the liberal discourse of
intellectual property blended well with the eighteenth-century discourse of
original genius, such that by the 1770s, the doctrine of originality was ortho-
dox in England.
29. Patterson, pp. 181 and 203-11
30. Stowe v. Thomas, 23 Federal Cases 201 (No. 13,514), 2 American Law
Register 210, Circuit Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Penn-
sylvania, October 1853.
31. George P. Sanger, ed., Statutes at Large and Proclamations of the United
States of America from December, 1869 to March ,1871, vol. 16 (Boston, 1871), pp.
212-17. Reprinted in Thorvald Solberg, Copyright Enactments of the United States,
1783-1906 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906), pp. 46-51.
The act was signed July 8,1870. Section 86 of the law states,

And be it further enacted, That any citizen of the United States, or res-
ident therein, who shall be the author . . . of any book . . . shall, upon
complying with the provisions of this act, have the sole liberty of print-
ing, reprinting, publishing... and in the case of dramatic composition,
of publicly performing or representing i t . . . and authors may reserve
the right to dramatize or to translate their own works.

For an invaluable account of the Stowe v. Thomas case and the literary and legal
issues surrounding the translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin, see Melissa J. Home-
stead, "The Author/Mother in the Marketplace and in Court: Harriet Beecher
Stowe and the Copyright in Uncle Tom's Cabin," unpublished, 1996. This paper
became part of Homestead's doctoral dissertation, "Imperfect Title: Nine-
teenth-Century American Women Authors and Literary Property," which she
completed in the spring of 1998 for the English Department at the University of
Pennsylvania. In the paper, Homestead reveals some fascinating aspects of the
case. For instance, the main "Stowe" in Stowe v. Thomas was in fact Harriet
Beecher Stowe's husband, Calvin Stowe. Under the nineteenth-century legal
principle of "coverture," her husband controlled all claims to her wealth and
property. She had almost no legal standing. Calvin signed her publishing con-
tract with John P. Jewett. Calvin also had to grant his consent for Harriet to be
co-plaintiff in the suit against Thomas. Homestead also reveals that Judge
Robert Grier's Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia was responsible
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 203

for enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was central to the under-
standing of and popularity of Stowe's book. Homestead has investigated the
manner in which Stowe registered for and gave notice of her copyright for the
periodical installments of Uncle Tom's Cabin before the book came out in one vol-
ume, and found that Stowe had not taken the proper legal measures to secure
her copyright. Although improper registration was not an issue in Stowe v.
Thomas, and Stowe did not face any other American legal challenges to her
copyright for Uncle Tom's Cabin, Homestead makes it clear that she likely would
have lost a suit that challenged the registration. Technical problems such as this
one inspired Congress to remove the registration requirement in the 1976 copy-
right revision.
32. Clark, p. 27
33. Clark, p. 40
34. Clark, p. 79.
35. Clark, p. 79. See Charles Dickens, American Notes (Philadelphia: T. B.
Peterson & Brothers, n.d.). This copy, part of the "People's Edition" library, was
a pirated version printed some time in or after the late 1860s, as indicated by the
text of "The Uncommercial Traveller," included after American Notes. In Ameri-
can Notes, Dickens refrained from criticizing American copyright law, and in-
stead focused on two much more repugnant evils: slavery and tobacco spitting.
36. Charles A. Madison, The Owl among Colophons: Henry Holt as Publisher
and Editor (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 21-25. For another
excellent example of how courtesy worked (barely) for British authors, see
Michael Winship, American Literary Publishing in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The
Business ofTicknor and Fields (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp.
135-40. Usually Ticknor and Fields paid British authors a flat fee upon receipt
of proof sheets or advance sheets before the first British printing. Occasionally
Ticknor and Fields paid British authors a 10 percent royalty, which was stan-
dard treatment for American authors.
37. Charles A. Madison, Book Publishing in America (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1966), pp. 52-57.
38. Clark, pp. 122-24,137-40
39. Reports of the Committee of the Senate of the United States, 1st Session, 49th
Congress, VII, No. 1188, pp. 115-20.
40. Clark, pp. 1 4 0 ^ 8
41. Clark, pp. 100,163-81
42. Frederick Anderson, William Gibson and Henry Nash Smith, eds., Se-
lected Mark Twain-Howells Letters, 1872-1910 (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1967), pp. 53-54.
43. Mark Twain, "American Authors and British Pirates," in Life As I Find
It (Garden City, N.Y: Hanover House, 1961), pp. 219-26.
44. As quoted in Clark, p. 140.
 204 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

45. Samuel Charles Webster, ed., Mark Twain, Business Man (Boston: Little,
Brown and Co., 1946), p. 315.
46. Twain, "American Authors and British Pirates," p. 222.
47. See Gillman.
48. Twain, Roughing It (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp.
221-27.
49. Victor Doyno, Writing Huck Finn: Mark Twain's Creative Process. (Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), pp. 186-91. Detailed and in-
valuable information about Twain's own literary appetites can be found in Alan
Gribben, Mark Twain's Library: A Reconstruction, 2 vols. (Boston: G. K. Hall,
1980).
50. Mark Twain to William Dean Howells, October 30, 1880, Mark Twain
Papers, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, Calif. Also printed and analyzed in Doyno,
p. 187.
51. Twain, part of "Plain Speech from American Authors," in Century, Feb-
ruary 1886, p. 634.
52. Twain, testimony before the Senate Committee on Patents, January 29,
1886. Reprinted in Paul Fatout, ed., Mark Twain Speaking (Iowa City: University
of Iowa Press, 1976), pp. 206-9.
53. Anderson, Gibson, and Smith, pp. 53-54.
54. Webster, pp. 353-54.
55. Mark Twain, Mark Twain in Eruption: Hitherto Unpublished Pages about
Men and Events (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 374.
56. Mark Twain, Christian Science (New York: Harper and Brothers Pub-
lishers, 1907), p. 141.
57. Twain, Christian Science, pp. 1 3 9 ^ 3 .
58. Twain, "American Authors and British Pirates: A Private Letter and a
Public Postscript," from New Princeton Review, January 1888. This piece is a re-
sponse to Brander Matthews, "American Authors and British Pirates," from
New Princeton Review, September 1887.
59. Albert Bigelow Paine, ed., Mark Twain's Letters (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1917), p. 731.
60. Paine, Mark Twain's Letters, p. 732.
61. Paine, Mark Twain's Letters, p. 731.
62. Paine, Mark Twain's Letters, p. 732.
63. Twain, "A True Story, Repeated Word for Word as I Heard It," in At-
lantic Monthly, November 1874. Reprinted in Twain, Sketches, New and Old (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1996). For a full account and analysis of the sig-
nificance of Mary Ann Cord's influence on Twain's literary development, see
Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Was Huck Black? Mark Twain and African American Voices
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Fisher Fishkin, Lighting Out for
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 205

the Territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American Culture (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997).
64. Twain, "How to Tell a Story," in Literary Essays (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1899), pp. 7-15.
65. Twain, Mark Twain to Uncle Remus, 1881-1885 (Atlanta: Emory Univer-
sity, 1953), p. 11.
66. Ralph Ellison, "Twentieth Century Fiction and the Black Mask of Hu-
manity," in Shadow and Act (New York: New American Library, 1964), pp. 42-60.
67. Resisting the temptation to leave this section unattributed, without
notes or references, I have opted instead to declare that some of the ideas ex-
pressed in it are mine, and others are not. However, I concede that it is valuable
to point readers toward three important works that deal with the issue of pla-
giarism. The most comprehensive is Thomas Mallon, Stolen "Words: Forays into
the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989). The sec-
ond, more specific yet more poignant, is Jim Swan, "Touching Words: Helen
Keller, Plagiarism, Authorship," in Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, eds.,
The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Dur-
ham: Duke University Press, 1994). A comprehensive bibliography of plagia-
rism (which sadly does not adequately distinguish plagiarism from copyright
infringement) is Judy Anderson, Plagiarism, Copyright Violation, and Other Thefts
of Intellectual Property: An Annotated Bibliography with a Lengthy Introduction (Jef-
ferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1998). For some recent debates over the profes-
sional sins of plagiarism, see Denise K. Manger, "History Association to Probe
Accusations of Plagiarism against Stephen Oates," Chronicle of Higher Education,
June 2,1993, pp. A12-A14. Also see Calvin Reid, "Novel at Center of 'Roots' Pla-
giarism Suit Reissued," in Publishers Weekly, July 12,1993, p. 13. For the effects
of plagiarism on scientific research, see Karen Hopkins, ed., "Scientific Plagia-
rism and the Theft of Ideas," Science, July 30,1993, p. 631. Also see M. H. Craw-
ford, "Plagiarism and Scientific Communication: A Cautionary Note," Human
Biology, October 1993, pp. 687-88. Asubstantial examination of some of the most
notorious recent scholarly plagiarism cases—and the misapplication of state
power to police them—can be found in Gary Taubes, "Fraud Busters: The Rise
and Spectacular Fall of Walter Stewart and Ned Feder, SMI (Scientific Miscon-
duct Investigators)," Lingua Franca, September/October 1993, p. 47. An inter-
esting and revealing recent case that conflates the issues of accusations of un-
ethical plagiarism and illegal copyright infringement was the public battle be-
tween historian William Manchester and novelist/journalist Joe McGinness.
Manchester's The Death of a President (New York: Arbor House, 1967) served as
a source for McGinness's The Last Brother (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993).
See Sarah Lyall, "Enter Manchester, Angrily," New York Times, July 21,1993, p.
C17. For a defense, see McGinnis, "Credit Check," New York, July 26,1993, pp.
 206 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

6-8. Two articles in New York magazine explore the ethical and legal ramifica-
tions of the Manchester-McGinnis dispute. See John Taylor, "Clip Job," New
York, July 12,1993, pp. 22-25. And see John Taylor, "Clip Job II," New York, July
26,1993, pp. 14-15.
68. "Recently discovered" and "unexamined" are strong terms that imply
a measure of individual industry or cleverness. I mean no such thing. No o n e —
especially not I—"discovered" the document "The Great Republic's Peanut
Stand." Finding this dialogue required no detective work, just curiosity. As a
caveat and qualification, I must explain that the manuscript lay for many years
at the bottom of a box of materials labeled "Copyright" in the Mark Twain Pa-
pers at the Bancroft Library in Berkeley. I am just the first person anyone can
seem to remember who bothered to read everything in that box. Robert Hirst,
editor-in-chief of the Mark Twain Project at Berkeley, said that to the best of his
knowledge, no scholar has discussed the piece with him, written about it, or re-
quested permission to publish it or quote from it. That does not mean that no
scholar read it before I did. It does not mean that it was never published in any
form. Many of Twain's unpublished works made their way into various collec-
tions that his biographers and literary executors assembled after his death.
However, I have done what I consider a broad sweep of the later collections,
and found only one citation of the dialogue, in a list of works Twain wrote in
Austria in 1898. See Carl Dolmetsch, Our Famous Guest: Mark Twain in Vienna
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1992). Dolmetsch does not analyze the
manuscript or consider the value of its content. For most of the twentieth cen-
tury, Twain scholars paid little or no attention to copyright law, despite Twain's
own well-documented concerns. There are four exceptions. The first literary ex-
ecutor of Twain's work, Albert Bigelow Paine, had a deep interest in copyright
law, which he shared with Twain in his later years. Paine discussed copyright at
length in his three-volume biography of Twain, Mark Twain: A Biography, the Per-
sonal and Literary Life of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (New York: Harper & Broth-
ers, 1912). To my knowledge, only two other published scholarly treatises seri-
ously examine Twain's interest in copyright as a major factor in his life and
work. The best is Victor Doyno, Writing Huck Finn. Doyno explores in great
depth Twain's efforts to secure an international copyright treaty among all Eng-
lish-reading nations to limit piracy. The other is Gillman, Dark Twins. Two other
unpublished works have dealt with Twain's interest in copyright law. A 1968
University of California doctoral dissertation by Herbert Feinstein, "Mark
Twain's Lawsuits," does a wonderful job of describing Twain's life as a litigant.
Many of his suits as both plaintiff and defendant concerned alleged copyright
violations. Feinstein, a lawyer, also wrote articles on Twain and copyright for
the American Bar Association and The Twainian, the newsletter of the Mark
Twain Research Foundation. Most recently, David Briggs, a graduate student in
the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of California at
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2 207

Berkeley and a staff member at the Mark Twain Project, compiled A Com-
pendium of Sources concerning Mark Twain's Dilemma with International Copyright,
1867-1883: Emphasis on His Problems with Canadian Pirates.
69. Mark Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," manuscript, Mark
Twain Papers, Bancroft Library, p. 1*. This and all other quotes from Mark
Twain's previously unpublished works are under the control of Edward J. Willi
and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company as Trustees of the Mark Twain
Foundation, which reserves all reproduction or dramatization rights in every
medium. Quotation is made with the permission of the University of California
Press and Robert H. Hirst, general editor of the Mark Twain Papers. Each quo-
tation is identified in the text by an asterisk (*).
70. Mark Twain, "Concerning Copyright: An Open Letter to the Register of
Copyrights," North American Review, January 1905, pp. 1-8.
71. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee of Patents. "Arguments before the
Committees on Patents of the Senate and House of Representatives, Conjointly,
on the Bills S. 6330 and H.R. 19853, to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Re-
specting Copyright," December 7, 8, 10, and 11 (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1906).
72. Doyno, pp. 184-98.
73. U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8. "Congress shall have the power . . . 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 dis-
coveries." Also see Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations (1776), ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1976), p. 754. Also see James Madison, Federalist 43, in The Federal-
ist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: New American Library 1961), pp.
271-72.
74. Goldstein, pp. 165-96. Also see Jane Ginsburg, " A Tale of Two Copy-
rights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America," Tulane Law Re-
view (1990).
75. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," pp. 1-3.
76. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," pp. 6-7.
77. For a full exploration and examples of Twain's frustration with Amer-
ican imperialism from 1898 to 1905, see Twain, Mark Twain's Weapons of Satire:
Anti-Imperialist Writings on the Philippine-American War, ed. Jim Zwick (Syra-
cuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992), and Louis Budd, Mark Twain, Social Phil-
osopher (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962). Thomas Babington Mac-
aulay, Prose and Poetry, ed. G. Young (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1952), pp. 733-37.
78. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," pp. 32-34.
79. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," p. 43.
80. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," pp. 56-59.
 208 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

81. Twain, "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand," pp. 56-58.

82. Twain, "Remarks on Copyright," in Fatout, p. 335.
83. Senate Bill 6330, 59th Congress, first session, 1906.
84. Mark Twain's Speeches (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1910), p. 324.
85. Copyright Law Revision (Washington: Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, 1960), p. 4.
86. Paine, Mark Twain's Letters, 2:831.
87. Siva Vaidhyanathan, "The New Imperialism: The Assault on Fair Use
and Free Expression by International Copyright," unpublished. Delivered to
the annual meeting of the American Studies Association, Washington, D.C., No-
vember 1,1997. For a brief outline of the three treaties, see Eric Schwartz, "In-
ternational Outlook: Impact of the Two New WIPO Treaties," in Intellectual
Property Strategist, January 1997, p. 1. For an in-depth examination of how both
dangerous and unnecessary the database treaty is, see J. H. Reichman and Pam-
ela Samuelson, "Intellectual Property Rights in Data?" Vanderbilt Law Review
(January 1997): 49-166.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

1. The Marx Brothers and Metro-Goldwyn lost two and won one of the in-
fringement cases against them. The first Marx Brothers-related suit was Clancy
v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. et at, 37 U.S.P.Q. 406. District Court, Southern
District of New York, March 26,1938. A fellow named Clancy wrote a play he
called "Nuts to You." Clancy met in January 1935 with Robert Pirosh, an official
of Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation. At the meeting, Clancy summarized
his idea for a film based on the play. Two years later, Metro-Goldwyn released
the Marx Brothers vehicle A Day at the Races, written by Pirosh, George Seaton,
and George Oppenheimer. In both "Nuts to You" and A Day at the Races, a vet-
erinarian (played by Groucho Marx in the film) runs a sanitarium and also owns
a racehorse. In his suit, Clancy did not claim that Pirosh or the Marx Brothers
used any of his dialogue, or even that they had read his play. As the judge in the
case wrote,

There is no contention that any of the language has been copied by the
defendants, but merely that the general idea or plot was taken. . . .
There was nothing particularly original in having a veterinarian act as
a psychiatrist in a private sanitarium, and, even if there were, the
plaintiff would be entitled to no protection for the idea after he had
voluntarily disclosed it to another.

Determining that the similarity was not strong enough to justify a ruling of in-
fringement, the judge dismissed the complaint. The second case was Marx et at.
v. United States, 37 U.S.P.Q. 380 (96 Fed. 2d 204), Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 209

Circuit, April 12, 1938. This was a criminal copyright case in which the Marx
Brothers were convicted of infringing on a dramatic composition called "The
Hollywood Adventures of Mr. Dibble and Mr. Dabble." The authors, Garrett
and Carroll Graham, mailed their copyrighted script to Groucho Marx, who ex-
pressed interest. Soon afterward, the Graham brothers met with one of the Marx
Brothers' writers named Boasborg. They never reached a deal on the transfer of
rights. On September 1, 1936, the Marx Brothers performed a slightly altered
version of the script on a radio show without permission or payment. Their de-
fense was that they forgot about the Grahams' script. The Marx Brothers lost in
court and on appeal. The third Marx Brothers case was a state suit filed in Cal-
ifornia, Barsha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer et al., 32 Cal. App. 2d 556 (90 P. 2d 371),
District Court of Appeals, California, May 8,1939. In this case, the plaintiffs had
met with Irving Thalberg, the production manager for the film A Day at the
Races, and had given him a copy of their scenario called "High Fever," which
was written specifically for the Marx Brothers and had a plot substantially sim-
ilar to that of the film A Day at the Races. The plaintiffs prevailed both at the state
district court level and on appeal, so the studio paid them $10,000. This chapter
owes much of its substance to two brilliant law review articles and an essential
short book. See Peter Jaszi, "When Works Collide: Derivative Motion Pictures,
Underlying Rights and the Public Interest," in UCLA Law Review 28 (1981):
715-815. Also see Mark A. Lemley, "The Economics of Improvement in Intel-
lectual Property Law," Texas Law Review (April 1997): 990-1084. Also see Ben-
jamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1967).
2. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. v. Sony Corporation of America, et al, 480
F. Supp. 429 (203 U.S.P.Q 656), U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
Oct. 2,1979. Groucho Marx Productions, Inc., et al. v. Day and Night Company, Inc.,
et al, 689 F. 2d 317, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Sept. 10,1982.
3. The expansion of the list of media that enjoy copyright protection can be
traced through the text of the various federal copyright revisions. See Copyright
Office, Copyright Enactments: Laws Passed in the United States since 1783 Relating
to Copyright (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1973).
4. Mark Twain The Death Disk, in The $30,000 Bequest and Other Stories (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 430-45.
5. Robert M. Henderson, D. W. Griffith: The Years at Biograph (New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970), p. 88. Also see Eileen Bowser, ed., Biograph Bul-
letins, 1908-1912 (New York: Octagon Books, 1973), p. 147. The film was re-
leased by the Biograph Company on December 2,1909. As of July 1998,1 have
not had a chance to see the Griffith film The Death Disc. The description of the
changes Griffith made to the story come entirely from the bulletin for the film
and from Henderson.
6. Thomas Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, with Elucidations
 210 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

(London: Chapman and Hall, 1888), part 5, p. 11. Twain owned an edition
printed around 1882, but the text of the story was not changed for later editions.
See Alan Gribben, Mark Twain's Library: A Reconstruction (Boston: G. K. Hall,
1980), 1:129.
7. Gribben, p. 129. Also see Charles L. Crow, "Death Disk, The," in James
R. LeMaster and James D. Wilson, Tiie Mark Twain Encyclopedia (New York: Gar-
land Publishing, 1993), pp. 210-11. Also see R. Kent Rasmussen, Mark Twain A
to Z: The Essential Reference to His Life and Writings (New York: Facts on File,
1995), p. 108.
8. I can't be sure that Griffith failed to secure permission for The Death Disc.
I have searched the Mark Twain Papers in Berkeley for some mention of the
film, some letter to Biograph or Griffith, and found none. I have searched mi-
crofilm copies of the D. W. Griffith papers from the Museum of Modern Art, and
found no evidence that Griffith or Biograph asked for or secured permission for
the stories. I have seen a pattern in Griffith's records that indicates he grew more
concerned with rights—both his own and those of his sources—as he became
more successful in the years immediately following The Death Disc.
9. For a brief synopsis of Carryle's life and work, see Margaret Drabble, The
Oxford Companion to English Literature, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985), pp. 170-71. For an excellent and concise summary of the history of
British copyright, see Drabble, pp. 1113-25.
10. Tino Balio, The American Film Industry (Madison: University of Wiscon-
sin Press, 1976), pp. 3-4.
11. Balio, pp. 5-6.
12. Balio, pp. 7-8.
13. Edison v. Lubin, 119 F. 993, Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylva-
nia, Jan. 13,1903.
14. Edison v. Lubin, 122 F. 240, Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, April
20,1903. District Judge Buffington's opinion in the case appeals to a theory of
communication that prefigures the structuralist ideas of Roland Barthes. As
Buffington claimed, the viewers create meaning in a motion picture. The source
of the images, the raw product, does not matter at all to him.
15. Barnes v. Miner et al., 122 F. 480, Circuit Court, Southern District of New
York, March 30,1903.
16. Balio, p. 9.
17. American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison Manufacturing Co., 137 F.
262, Circuit Court, District of New Jersey, May 6,1905.1 could not determine the
final disposition of the case. This ruling only rejects a plea for an injunction
against Edison's version. Perhaps Biograph's lawyers did not foresee winning
the case on its merits, so settled or dropped the case.
18. Ralph Cassady Jr., "Monopoly in Motion Picture Production and Dis-
tribution: 1908-1915," in Gorham Kindem, ed., The American Movie Industry: The
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 211

Business of Motion Pictures (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,

1982), pp. 25-68. Also see Jeanne Thomas Allen, "The Decay of the Motion Pic-
ture Patents Company," in Balio, pp. 119-134. Also see Janet Staiger, "Combi-
nation and Litigation: Structures of U.S. Film Distribution, 1896-1917," Cinema
Journal (winter 1983): 41-73.
19. Balio, p. 105.
20. Lew Wallace, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1880). The copyright notice on the first edition is in the name of
Harper and Brothers, not Wallace himself. Also see James D. Hart, ed., The Ox-
ford Companion to American Literature, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1983), p. 67.
21. Harper and Brothers et al. v. Kalem Co. et al., 169 F. 61. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, Second Circuit, March 16,1909.
22. Holmes v. Donahue et al, 77 F. 179, Circuit Court, Northern District of Illi-
nois, July 1, 1896. Holmes v. Hurst, 76 F. 757, Circuit Court, Eastern District of
New York, Nov. 6,1896. Holmes v. Hurst, 80 F. 514, Circuit Court of Appeals, Sec-
ond Circuit, May 3,1897. Holmes v. Hurst, 17A U.S. 82,19 S. Ct. 606, U.S. Supreme
Court, April 24,1899. Both Donahue and Hurst concern a popular collection of
Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes's stories, The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table (1858).
Starting in 1857, the Atlantic Monthly published twelve articles by Dr. Holmes
that eventually constituted the chapters of The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table. Dr.
Holmes did not register them with the Copyright Office until they had been col-
lected into a book in 1858. By 1896, several publishing houses had printed pi-
rated copies of the book, claiming that because Holmes had not registered a
copyright for each article before it was published in the Atlantic, he held no
copyright over them and they were in the public domain. Courts at all levels—
right up to the U.S. Supreme Court—agreed with the pirates. Holmes and his
lawyers were unable to convince the courts that he should have some common
law control over his publications, regardless of the letter of the law. The imme-
diate ramification of these rulings was that pirates searched back issues of mag-
azines for articles that eventually made up chapters of famous authors' books.
These included The Minister's Wooing (1859) by Harriet Beecher Stowe, chapters
of which were also published in the Atlantic before they were submitted to the
Copyright Office. The Stowe cases include Mifflin et al. v. Dutton et al, 107 F. 708,
112 F. 1004, and 190 U.S. 265 (23 S. Ct. 771), U.S. Supreme Court, June 1, 1903.
The frustration over losing these cases—not to mention the income that would
have been derived from setting monopoly prices on The Autocrat of the Breakfast
Table—might have motivated Holmes to radically revise copyright principles in
his Supreme Court opinions. My understanding of the Holmes decisions was
greatly aided by Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: The Law and Lore of Copy-
right from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), pp.
60-68. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithograph Co., 188 U.S. 239, U.S. Supreme Court,
 212 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

1903. Also see White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, U.S.
Supreme Court, 1908.
23. Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55, U.S. Supreme Court, Nov. 13,1911.
The legal saga of Ben-Hur on the big screen did not end with the Supreme
Court's Kalem decision. Five years later, Harper Brothers sued the dramatic pro-
duction company that had purchased the rights to Ben-Hur. See Harper Bros, et
al. v. Klaw et ah, 232 Fed. R., District Court, Southern District of New York, Jan.
6,1916. The publisher claimed it had assigned rights to Klaw and Erlanger only
for a stage production. Klaw and Erlanger, however, argued that they owned all
dramatic rights, even to those forms of dramatization that had yet to be in-
vented in 1899, such as narrative film or video games. The judge granted an in-
junction against Klaw and Erlanger's attempts to license an authorized film ver-
sion of Ben-Hur, and urged the publisher and drama company to come to terms
on the rights transfer. They never did. No film version of Ben-Hur emerged until
a Metro-Goldwyn silent production in 1926, eighteen years after the novel en-
tered the public domain and just as the copyright on the dramatization expired.
Another version, also by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and starring Charlton Heston
in full sound and Technicolor, came out in 1959. Holmes's decision in Kalem,
while setting a valuable precedent, did not generate any income for the Wallace
family, the publisher, or the dramatization company, and denied the viewing
public a film version of Ben-Hur for two decades.
24. Henderson, p. 10. For summaries of the content and attribution of Grif-
fith's Biograph films, see Bowser. For biographical information on London and
Norris, see Hart. Jack London lived from 1876 to 1916, and published his first
collection of short stories in book form in 1900. Therefore, assuming he regis-
tered the stories properly with the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress,
none of London's stories entered the public domain until 1914. The Call of the
Wild was published in 1903, so would not have entered the public domain until
1917. London first published "Just Meat" in Cosmopolitan in March 1907, so it
would have entered the public domain in 1928. See Hensley Woodbridge, ed.,
Jack London: A Bibliography (Georgetown, Cal.: Talisman Press, 1966), p. 224.
Frank Norris lived from 1870 to 1902. The collection of short stories entitled A
Deal in Wheat was published posthumously in 1903, but the short story by the
same title first appeared in Everybody's Magazine in August 1902, two months
before Norris died from complications from an appendectomy. See Joseph Gaer,
ed., Frank Norris: Bibliography and Biographical Data (New York: Burt Franklin,
1935). There is a chance the short stories "Just Meat" and "A Deal in Wheat"
were in the public domain if the authors or the magazines failed to register them
properly. There are no records in the microfilm edition of Griffith's papers that
show that either Griffith or Biograph requested or received permission to base
any of these films on London or Norris stories. None of the Biograph bulletins
for these films makes any mention of literary sources. For Griffith's literary in-
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 213

fluences, see Richard Schickel, D. W. Griffith: An American Life (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1984), pp. 637-47.
25. London v. Biograph Co., 231 Fed. Rep., pp. 696-99. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, Second Circuit, Feb. 15,1916.
26. Henderson, p. 101. Schickel, p. 152. For the full bulletin advertising the
film Ramona, see Bowser, p. 197. For information on Helen Hunt Jackson, see
Hart, p. 373. Also see Valerie Sherer Mathes, Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian
Reform Legacy (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990). See Helen Hunt Jackson,
Ramona: A Story (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1913). Little, Brown first
published the novel for Jackson in 1884. Jackson died the following year. The
original copyright on the novel would have expired in 1898, but Jackson's heirs
could have renewed the copyright for another fourteen years. That term would
have expired in 1912. Biograph could have waited two years to use Ramona as a
public domain work, but the company would have saved only $100 and would
not have been able to advertise the film's authenticity.
27. "An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,"
March 4,1909 (in effect July 1,1909), in Copyright Office, Copyright Enactments
(Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress), pp. 64-86. "Act of August 24,1912," in
Copyright Office, Copyright Enactments, pp. 87-91.
28. Frank E. Woods to Albert H. T. Banzhaf, Sept. 5,1914, D. W. Griffith Pa-
pers, Museum of Modern Art, New York. Albert H. T. Banzhaf to Librarian of
Congress, Sept. 19,1914, Griffith Papers. Woods was responsible for suggesting
that Griffith purchase the rights to Thomas Dixon's The Clansman, which be-
came the film The Birth of a Nation in 1915.
29. Albert H. T. Banzhaf to Thorvald Solberg, Oct. 1,1914, Griffith Papers.
Thorvald Solberg to Albert H. T. Banzhaf, Oct. 2,1914, Griffith Papers.
30. Albert H. T. Banzhaf to Frank E. Woods, Oct. 3,1914, Griffith Papers.
31. Albert H. T. Banzhaf to World Film Corporation, June 13,1918, Griffith
Papers. There is no reply from World Film Corporation in the Griffith Papers.
For information on the Griffith film Hearts of the World, see Schickel, pp. 340-60.
Also see Scott Simmon, The Films ofD. W. Griffith (New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1993), p. 11.1 could find no information on the World Film Cor-
poration's film Heart of the World. I have found no evidence to suggest that
Griffith changed the title of The Clansman to The Birth of a Nation so that he could
establish some measure of control of the story or title. For complex and unper-
suasive theories about the decision to change the name of the film, see Seymore
Stern, "Griffith I: 'The Birth of a Nation,'" in Film Culture (spring-summer 1965):
150-57. The most commonly told story about the name change is that Dixon
himself thought The Birth of a Nation would be a bolder title than The Clansman,
and convinced Griffith to change it between the Los Angeles and New York re-
leases in February 1915. See Terry Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1926), p. 641. American copyright law still does not
 214 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

protect titles. However, some other areas of the law such as trademark and un-
fair competition law have evolved to protect titles in some instances. See
Melville B. Nimmer, Cases and Materials on Copyright, 3d ed. (St. Paul: West Pub-
lishing Co., 1985). Also see Jonathan Kirsch, Kirsch's Handbook of Publishing Law
for Authors, Publishers, Editors, and Agents (Los Angeles: Acrobat Books, 1995).
32. D. W. Griffith Studio to Fulton Brylawski, Sept. 18,1918, Dec. 14,1918,
March 18,1919, May 15,1919, Griffith Papers. Fulton Brylawski to D. W. Grif-
fith Studio, May 29,1919, Griffith Papers.
33. "An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright,"
March 4,1909 (in effect July 1,1909), in Copyright Office, Copyright Enactments,
pp. 64-86. Two sections of this law created corporate copyright. Sec. 3 states:
"That the copyright provided by this Act shall protect all the copyrightable
component parts of the work copyrighted, and all matter therein in which copy-
right is already subsisting, but without extending the duration or scope of such
copyright. The copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the
proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each
part were individually copyrighted under this Act." And Sec. 23, which estab-
lished the extended copyright terms Mark Twain fought for, reads:

That the copyright secured by this Act shall endure for twenty-eight
years from the date of the first publication, whether the copyrighted
work bears the author's true name or is published anonymously or
under an assumed name: Provided that in the case of any posthumous
work or of any periodical, cyclopaedic, or other composite work upon
which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof,
or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as an
assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for
whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright
shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such
work for the further term of twenty-eight years.

34. Albert H. T. Banzhaf to S. E. V. Taylor, Feb. 13, 1919, Griffith Papers.

Taylor to Banzhaf, Feb. 15,1919, Griffith Papers.
35. Schickel, pp. 643-45. Contract between Edward Roberts and David
Wark Griffith, March 18,1919, Griffith Papers.
36. D. W. Griffith Studio to Lee Johnson, March 21, 1919, Griffith Papers.
Also see Schickel, pp. 240-44.
37. Stern, pp. 103-41. Also see Schickel, pp. 240-44.
38. Schickel, pp. 2 4 5 ^ 6 .
39. Roy Gilder to W. H. T. Banzhaf, Jan. 11,1917, Griffith Papers. Contract
between David Wark Griffith and Wark Producing Corporation, Jan. 12, 1917,
Griffith Papers. Certificate of Copyright Registration for Intolerance, Copyright
Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Jan. 8,1917.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 215

40. Hein v. Harris, 175 F. 875, Southern District of New York, 1910. See Ger-
ald Gunther, Learned Hand: The Man and the judge (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1994), pp. 315-43. Also see Kaplan, pp. 87-92. As Gunther explains, Hand's
opinions from the bench also aided in the century-long process of relieving au-
thors from government censorship. Hand was instrumental in lifting the heavy
hand of censorship from H. L. Mencken's magazine, the American Mercury, in
1927, and James Joyce's great novel Ulysses in 1934. See United States v. One Bock
Called "Ulysses," 5 F. Supp. 182, Southern District of New York, 1933. Also see
the ruling on appeal by Hand's court, United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses,
72 F. 2d 705, U.S. Second Circuit, 1934. For background on the Ulysses censor-
ship cases, see Kenneth R. Stevens, "'Ulysses' on Trial," in Dave Oliphant and
Thomas Zigal, eds., Joyce at Texas: Essays on the James Joyce Materials at the Hu-
manities Research Center (Austin: Humanities Research Center of the University
of Texas, 1983), pp. 91-105.
41. Gunther, pp. 323-28.
42. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119, Second Circuit Court of
Appeals, 1930. See Kaplan, pp. 4 6 ^ 8 . For a critique of the weaknesses of
Hand's definitions of the idea/expression dichotomy in the Nichols decision,
see Alfred Yen, "A First Amendment Perspective on the Idea/Expression Di-
chotomy and Copyright in a Work's 'Total Concept and Feel.'" Emory Law Jour-
nal (1989): 404-6.
43. The trial court decision is Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 7 Fed.
Supp. 837, Southern District of New York, 1934.
44. Hand's opinion on appeal is Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81
F. 2d 49, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 1936. See Kaplan, pp. 48-52. See Gun-
ther, pp. 325-28.
45. The segments of story that Hand had identified among the four tellings
of a similar tale are examples of what French literary theorist Roland Barthes
would years later call a "lexia," a basic element of a narrative text. See Roland
Barthes, S/Z, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Hill and Wang, 1974), pp. 13-14.
Barthes defines a "lexia" as "the best possible space in which we can observe
meanings." In S/Z, Barthes outlines and defines five narrative "codes" that a
text employs (or a reader interprets) to achieve, receive, or create meaning.
These five codes are the "hermeneutic code," which governs disclosure, or how
the reader gets to know (or fail to know) things; the "proairatic code," which
links plot points into a plot, the sequence of events and actions; the "semic
code," which sheds light on characters; the "symbolic code," which explores
themes and links the text to abstract concepts; and the "cultural code," which
influences what the reader makes of the text in terms of the knowledge the
reader brings to it. See Barthes, pp. 18-20. Also see Adam Newton, Narrative
Ethics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995). Newton adds a sixth code,
the "ethical code," to the methods for unlocking the functions of a text. Clearly,
 216 NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

Hand was playing a structuralist game in his reading of the four narratives in-
volved in the Sheldon case. In the near future, I will go through Hand's opinion
in Sheldon and explain it as an act of narratology.
46. Becker v. Loew's, Inc., 133 F. 2d 889, Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, 1943. A historian who wrote a biography of William Randolph Hearst
engaged Orson Welles and RKO Pictures in a long-running suit over the alleged
use of his book in the production of the script for Citizen Kane. The case dragged
on for years because of conflicts over discovery, and I was not able to determine
the final resolution of the case, but it seems likely the plaintiff gave up in frus-
tration. See Lundberg v. Welles et al., 11 F.R.D. 136, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, 1951.
47. Judy Quinn, "Amistad: Tie-ins and Trouble," Publisher's Weekly, Nov. 3,
1997, p. 19. Sharon Waxman, "Judge Allows Release of Spielberg's Amistad; Pla-
giarism Suit against Filmmaker to Proceed," Washington Post, Dec. 9, 1997, p.
D l . Maria Matzer, "Plagiarism Suit Targets Full Monty," Los Angeles Times,
March 3,1998, p. A l . Preliminary injunctions in copyright suits are one of the
few constitutionally sanctioned methods of prior restraint of otherwise free
communication. The threshold for injunctions in copyright suits, unlike other
causes of action in free speech cases, is alarmingly low, despite the fact that in
commercial fields such as book publishing and motion picture production,
remedies for infringement are available long after the release of any work. See
Mark Lemley and Eugene Volokh, "Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in In-
tellectual Property Cases," Duke Law Journal 48 (1998): 147-217.
48. Sid and Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d
1157, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1977. See Yen, pp. 407-15. H. R. Pufnstuf
scared me as a child. I used to have nightmares about the trees. On the other
hand, McDonaldland did nothing for me. Had I been called as a six-year-old ex-
pert witness, I would have testified that no child would be stupid enough to
confuse the two habitats. The prime motivation for the plot of the series was
that Jimmy was trapped on an island and could not get off. The kids in Mc-
Donaldland never wanted to leave, because the charming characters kept feed-
ing them and entertaining them. Besides, any kid could tell you that one was in
a show and the other was in a commercial. Commercials last only 30 seconds.
Seeing McDonaldland commercials for most of my childhood never even gen-
erated for me a loose association with H.R. Pufnstuf. Until I read about this case,
I had not imagined that anyone could have even assumed the two settings had
anything in common. Living Island had monsters, witches, evil trees, and an
unhappy boy with an annoying flute. McDonaldland was led by jolly Mayor
McCheese and a ubiquitous clown named Ronald. The most threatening char-
acter in the McDonald's commercials was the bumbling Hamburglar. The court
record does not show that any young children were consulted for this case.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 217

49. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F. 2d 1106, Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, 1970. See Yen, pp. 407-8.
50. According to Yen, some cases that could have fallen under the "total
concept and feel" criteria but did not include Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,
833 F. 2d 117, Eighth Circuit, 1987; Berkie v. Crichton, 761 F. 2d 1298, Ninth Cir-
cuit, 1985; and Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F. 2d 1352, Ninth Circuit, 1984. See Yen,
p. 411, n. 108. One case that Yen did not list, yet that deserves fuller exploration
elsewhere, is Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et at. v. MCA, Inc., et ah, 715 F. 2d
1327, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1983. This case concerned possible in-
fringement of the film Star Wars (1977) by the film and television series Battlestar
Galáctica (1978). The trial court judge complained that the Ninth Circuit, in
Krofft, required him to submit the films to the vague test for "total concept and
feel." He then rebelled and issued a summary judgment for the defendant, dis-
missing the copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed that summary judg-
ment and ordered a trial.
51. See Amy Wallace, "It's Lights! Camera! Lawyers?" Los Angeles Times,
Dec. 10,1997, p. A l (my thanks to Kent Rasmussen for sending me a clip of this
article). See Art Buchwald et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 706083. Both Coming to America
and Eddie Murphy's first film, Trading Places (1983), were directed by John Lan-
dis and are variations on Mark Twain's comedy of manners The Prince and the
Pauper (1882), which itself has antecedents in folklore. See Twain, The Prince and
the Pauper (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). The 12 Monkeys case is
Woods v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 62, Central District of Califor-
nia, 1995. The case involving Seven, which ended in favor of the studio, is San-
doval v. Hew Line Cinema Corp., 973 F. Supp. 409, Southern District of New York,
1997. See Lemley and Volokh.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

1. Led Zeppelin, "Whole Lotta Love," on Led Zeppelin II (New York: At-
lantic Records, 1969). In the 1994 digitally remastered release of Led Zeppelin II,
Willie Dixon receives co-songwriting credit for "Whole Lotta Love" after Jimmy
Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and John Bonham.
2. Willie Dixon, "You Need Love," on various artists, Blues Masters, Volume
6 (New York: Rhino Records, 1993). The Dixon composition was originally re-
leased as a Muddy Waters recording by Chess Records in 1962. See Steve
Hochman, "Willie Dixon's Daughter Makes Sure Legacy Lives On," Los Angeles
Times, Oct. 8,1994, p. F10. Also see Greg Kot, "Willie Dixon's Heavenly Legacy:
Blues Heaven Foundation Aims to Smooth the Road for Other Blues Artists,"
Chicago Tribune, Dec. 17,1993, p. 5.
 218 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

3. Willie Dixon and Don Snowden, I Am the Blues: The Willie Dixon Story
(New York: Da Capo Press, 1989), p. 223. Information on the Blues Heaven
Foundation can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.island.net/
-blues/heaven.html. The troubling relationship between blues composers and
their record and publishing companies is much clearer. More often than not, it
was blatantly exploitative. For an account of the relationship between Chicago
rhythm and blues labels and their exploited artists, see Mike Rowe, Chicago
Breakdown (New York: Da Capo Press, 1979). Also see Robert Pruter, Chicago
Soul (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991). For a study of the cultural and
social meaning of blues in Chicago, see Charles Keil, Urban Blues (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1966). For the most penetrating study of the blues
aesthetic in American culture, see Albert Murray, Stomping the Blues (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1976).
4. David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Villard Books, 1993), p. 478.
5. Nelson George, The Death of Rhythm and Blues (New York: Pantheon,
1988), pp. 62-64. Public Enemy, "Fight the Power," from Fear of a Black Planet
(New York: Def Jam Records, 1990). Tricia Rose, BlackNoise: Rap Music and Black
Culture in Contemporary America (Hanover, N.H.: Wesleyan University Press,
1994), pp. 4 - 8 . The observation about "alternative" playlists is my own, drawn
from hundreds of hours of frustrating radio listening.
6. Dixon and Snowden, p. 224. The essential books about Delta blues in-
clude Robert Palmer, Deep Blues (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), and William
Ferris, Blues from the Delta (New York: Da Capo, 1978).
7. Muddy Waters, interview with Alan Lomax in Stovall, Mississippi, Au-
gust 1941, on Muddy Waters: The Complete Plantation Recordings (Universal City,
Calif.: MCA Records, 1993). Thanks to Gena Dagel Caponi for insisting that I lis-
ten to this interview.
8. David Evans, Big Road Blues: Tradition and Creativity in the Folk Blues
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 113-15. Thanks to David
Sanjek for suggesting this book, and thanks to a reader for New York University
Press for insisting that I explore the blues ethic and how it evades the Boolean
logical traps.
9. John Cowley, "Really the 'Walking Blues': Son House, Muddy Waters,
Robert Johnson, and the Development of a Traditional Blues," in Richard Mid-
dletown and David Horn, eds., Popular Music 1: Folk or Popular? Distinctions, In-
fluences, Continuities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 57-72.
Also see Palmer, Deep Blues, pp. 4-7. Palmer refers to the various verses from
"Country Blues" as "the common property of all blues singers."
10. Robert Johnson, "Walking Blues," on Robert Johnson: The Complete Re-
cordings (Los Angeles: Columbia Records, 1990).
11. Waters, "Country Blues," on Muddy Waters: The Complete Plantation Re-
cordings. The 1948 version, "Feel Like Goin' Home," was copyrighted by Arc
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 219

Music in 1964, with words and music credited to McKinley Morganfield, which
was Muddy Waters's real name. Arc Music, the publishing company affiliated
with Chess Records in Chicago, published most of Waters's and Dixon's com-
positions as works made for hire, giving flat fees but limited royalties to the
composers. Arc was owned by Benny Goodman's brothers, Gene and Harry
Goodman. See Dixon and Snowden.
12. Ferris, pp. 57-59.
13. Gena Dagel Caponi, ed., Signifyin', Sanctifyin', and Slam Dunking: A
Reader in African American Expressive Culture (Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts Press, 1999), pp. 8-15. The introduction to this book is the single most
eloquent distillation on the influence of African aesthetics on American culture.
For the African influence on American dance, see Brenda Dixon Gottschild, Dig-
ging the Africanist Presence in American Performance: Dance and Other Contexts
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996). For the transnational consciousness
that informs the African diaspora, see Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity
and Double Consciousness (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993). For Af-
ricanisms and their presence in American music, see Gerhard Kubik, Africa and
the Blues (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1999). Also see Steven Tracy,
ed., Write Me a Few of Your Lines: A Blues Reader (Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts Press, 1999). For an analysis of improvisation, see Albert Murray, "Im-
provisation and the Creative Process," in Robert O'Meally, ed., The Jazz Cadence
of American Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), pp. 111-113.
For Africanisms in American language, see Geneva Smitherman, Talkin' and
Testifyin': The Language of Black America (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1977).
14. Christopher Small, Music of the Common Tongue: Survival and Celebration
in African American Music (Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1987), pp. 289-
312. Also see Robert Farris Thompson, Flash of the Spirit: African and Afro-Amer-
ican Art and Philosophy (New York: Vintage, 1983).
15. George Harrison, "My Sweet Lord," from All Things Must Pass (Lon-
don: Apple Records, 1970). The account of Harrison's composition process is
from Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177, U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York, Aug. 31,1976.
16. Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.
17. Sidney Shemel and M. William Krasilovsky, This Business of Music, 5th
ed. (New York: Billboard Publications, 1985), pp. 265-66.
18. Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.
19. Robert Palmer, "Today's Songs, Really Yesterday's," New York Times,
July 8,1981, p. C21.
20. John Fogerty, Centerfield (Burbank: Warner Brothers Records, 1985). See
George Varga, "A Good Moon Rising: Legal Troubles behind Him, Fogerty
Takes Back His Own," San Diego Union-Tribune, August 13,1998, p. E4. Also see
 220 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

Hank Bordowitz, Bad Moon Rising: The Unauthorized History of Creedence Clear-
water Revival (New York: Shirmer Books, 1998), pp. 202-6.
21. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 664 F. Supp. 1345, Northern District of Califor-
nia, 1987. Also see Fantasy Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F. 2d 1524, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, 1993. Also see Katherine Bishop, "A Victory for the Creative Proc-
ess," New York Times, November 11,1988, p. B5.
22. See Shemel and Krasilovsky. For the history of the development of this
"bundle" of rights, especially the rise of ASCAP and BMI, see Russell Sanjek
(updated by David Sanjek), Pennies from Heaven: The American Popular Music
Business in the Twentieth Century (New York: Da Capo Press, 1996).
23. Rose, pp. 21-26.
24. Schoolly D, "Signifying Rapper," from Smoke Some Kill (Philadelphia:
Zomba Recording Corp., 1988). For an example of the "Signifying Monkey"
tale, see Langston Hughes and Arna Bontemps, eds., Book of Negro Folklore (New
York: Dodd, Mead, 1958), pp. 365-6. Also see Roger Abrahams, ed., Afro-Amer-
ican Folktales: Stories from Black Traditions in the New World (New York: Pantheon,
1985), pp. 101-5. For the transgressive and political potential of "signifying"
during African American slavery, see Abrahams, Singing the Master: The Emer-
gence of African American Culture in the Plantation South (New York: Pantheon,
1992). For an account of the urban twentieth-century uses of both the practice of
"signifying" and the "Signifying Monkey" tale, see Abrahams, Deep Down in the
jungle: Negro Narrative Folklore from the Streets of Philadelphia (Chicago: Aldine
Publishing, 1970). Also see John W. Roberts, From Trickster to Badman: The Black
Folk Hero in Slavery and Freedom (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1989). For a theory of the transgressive and unifying functions of trick-
sters, signifying, and the "Signifying Monkey" in forging an African American
literary tradition published the same year as Schoolly D's "Signifying Rapper,"
see Henry Louis Gates, The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African American Lit-
erary Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). For an introduction
to the Afro-Caribbean roots of the Signifying Monkey, see Thompson.
25. Theresa Moore and Torri Minton, "Music of Rage," San Francisco
Chronicle, May 18,1992, p. 1.
26. Until late 1991, there were no sampling cases brought to trial, although
many had been filed and settled out of court, according to James P. Allen Jr.,
"Look What They've Done to My Song, Ma—Digital Sampling in the '90s: A
Legal Challenge for the Music Industry," Entertainment and Sports Law Review 9
(1992):181.
27. Juan Carlos Thorn, note in the Loyola Entertainment Law journal 8, no. 2
(1988):336.
28. David Toop, Rap Attack 2: African Rap to Global Hip Hop (London: Ser-
pent's Tail, 1991), pp. 29-34. This is an updated version of his original book, Rap
Attack. It includes more on the rise of Def Jam and its artists, and on the rise of
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 221

and controversy between Los Angeles and Miami-based rappers. Toop also
writes, "No matter how far it penetrates into the twilight maze of Japanese
video games and cool European electronics, its roots are still the deepest in all
contemporary Afro-American music" (p. 19).
29. Toop cites Otis Redding's "Tramp" as an early dissing influence on rap
pioneer Afrika Bambaataa. Toop, p. 115. Many rappers pay their debt by quot-
ing from these masters of soul and funk. Digital Underground even named an
album in honor of George Clinton's P-Funk, Sons of the P.
30. Mark Costello and David Foster Wallace, Signifying Rappers: Rap and
Race in the Urban Present (New York: Ecco Press, 1990), p. 25. Also see Toop, p.
17. Many of the backing tracks to early rap hits were lifted from 1970s disco
records such as Chic's "Good Times," or classic James Brown and Funkadelic
riffs. It was not unusual to hear some stranger stuff, such as television theme
show choruses or Kraftwerk spinning in the background. Strangely, one of the
most often used and cited backing tracks was "Apache," by the Incredible
Bongo Band. It was written and performed by a British instrumental group, the
Shadows, and became a hit in 1960. The Ventures also covered it. Eventually, the
Sugarhill Gang recorded an entire song called "Apache." See Toop, p. 114.
31. Toop, p. 66. Bambaataa was hardly alone in this practice. One of his
"old school" contemporaries who tried to make a mid-eighties comeback, Kool
Moe Dee, laid down a repetitive track of Paul Simon's "Fifty Ways to Leave
Your Lover." Stevie Gabb's snare drum roll would introduce Dee's ominous
baritone voice warning that he had "fifty ways . . . to get ya."
32. For a full exploration of the improvisational history of basketball, see
Nelson George, Elevating the Game: Black Men and Basketball (New York: Harper-
Collins, 1992). Also see Caponi. For the be-bop/hip-hop connection, see Toop,
p. 18.
33. Ruth Finnegan, Oral Literature in Africa (London: Oxford University
Press, 1970), p. 9. Oral traditions that sprout written traditions handle questions
of authorship and originality in a complicated manner. While the British ro-
mantic tradition runs from influence, the American oral-written tradition revels
in it, and uses it with wit and style. This aesthetic is most closely studied and
clearly explained in the African American oral and literary traditions. In The
Signifying Monkey, Gates identifies how the anxiety of influence affected opin-
ions of African and African American expression. Gates notes that David Hume
and Thomas Jefferson both accused blacks of being merely imitative rather than
creative. Orally based literatures are likely to be heavily informed by immedi-
ate audience response, and the valorized storyteller must react to what has been
told before and to what is going on around him. The storyteller has an impor-
tant role, one of demystified authorship. Yet there is no overriding concern for
originality as a substantive function, merely a stylistic one. Zora Neale Hurston
took it upon herself to demystify the Anglo-Saxon author, and she expressed
 222 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

ideas similar to those Mark Twain wrote to Helen Keller: "It is obvious that to
get back to original sources is much too difficult for any group to claim very
much as a certainty. What we really mean by originality is the modification of
ideas. The most ardent admirer of the great Shakespeare cannot claim first
source even for him. It is in his treatment of the borrowed material." See
Hurston, "Characteristics of Negro Expression," in Robert O'Meally, The Jazz
Cadence of American Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), p.
304. In Tlie Signifying Monkey, Gates outlines tropes that determine the "black-
ness" of black texts. These tropes recognize the aesthetic of oral transmission
and show up clearly in the written antecedents. Gates calls these tropes tropo-
logical revision, the speakerly text, and the talking texts. Gates is clear about his
motive for defining the blackness in texts textually instead of biologically: to
open his model to texts written by whites. For Gates and others who study
African, African American, and American art, music and literature, repetition
and revision are fundamental to the forms. As Gates writes, "Whatever is black
about black American literature is to be found in this identifiable black Signi-
f y i n g ) difference." In other words, Gates's goal is to trace a history of distinct
and conscious influence—what he calls "tropological revision"—throughout a
literary tradition. Gates defines tropological revision as "the manner in which a
specific trope is repeated, with differences, between two or more texts." It is im-
portant to realize that Gates's questions can and should apply to texts and tra-
ditions that few would easily call "black" or "African." So it is revealing to sub-
ject Twain and his work, as it arises out of the American and African American
oral traditions, to Gates's analysis. Gates's work is about much more than
African American literature. It explores how the vestiges of oral traditions sur-
vive and thrive in written literature. In cultures that are primarily oral, and
within modes of expression that remain oral but operate within postoral or lit-
erate cultures, originality is a matter of style, not substance. According to Wal-
ter J. Ong, twentieth-century scholarship of oral literature has shown that repe-
tition and revision are essential to the cognitive processes that enable commu-
nication and the transmission of meaning. Without a recognizable vocabulary
of repeated expressions, an audience cannot follow a story and a storyteller can-
not organize the narrative. Orally transmitted stories must be formulaic, and
thus "less original," if we define originality substantively, as we do for linear,
written narratives. While written cultures reward its "originators" for "making
it new," oral cultures reward stylistic daring, performative excellence, improv-
isation, and audience participation. Doing the "same thing" better is better than
doing a "new thing" the same way. See Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The
Technologizing of the Word (London: Routledge, 1982).
34. Dick Hebdige, Cut V Mix: Culture, Identity, and Caribbean Music (Lon-
don: Comedia, 1987).
35. Hebdige, p.12.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 223

36. Hebdige, p. 83.

37. Hebdige, p.84.
38. Hebdige, p. 137.
49. Hebdige, p. 137.
40. Hebdige, p. 137.
41. Toop, p. 60.
42. Hebdige, p. 138.
43. Daisann McLane, New York Times, Aug. 23,1992, p.22.
44. The Beach Boys' breakthrough hit, "Surfin' USA," released in March
1963, relied almost entirely on Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen," and its lyri-
cal concept was not unlike that song's or that of Chubby Checker's "Twistin'
USA." After Arc Music, Berry's publisher, sued Capitol Records, the label set-
tled out of court and gave Berry an undisclosed monetary award and writer's
credit on the label. The artistic significance of this event is that "Surfin' USA"
established and popularized the Beach Boys' harmonies, vocal styles, and pro-
duction techniques that would set a high mark of creativity with the Pet Sounds
album. For a full history of this breakthrough song, see Steven Gaines, Heroes
and Villains: The True Story of the Beach Boys (New York: New American Library,
1986), pp. 100-101.
45. Famous recorded versions include a 1958 single hit for Lloyd Price, a
1963 cut by the Isley Brothers, several by Dr. John, and a brief Cockney version
by the Clash on London Calling.
46. Roland and Yamaha began marketing digital samplers in the United
States in 1983, at a cost of up to $20,000. These days, they cost as little as $2,000.
See David Sanjek, '"Don't Have to DJ No More': Sampling and the 'Autono-
mous' Creator," Arts and Entertainment Law journal 10, no. 2 (1992): 612.
47. Allen, p. 181.
48. Hammer freely admits his dependence on other artists for his dance-
able beats. He is paid for his dancing and rapping, one of which is impressive.
Hammer was quoted in People magazine saying, "Right after I did the song, I
said, 'Hey I gotta pay Rick for this.' I didn't need a lawyer to tell me that." See
Peter Castro, "Chatter," People, July 30,1990, p. 86. Hammer frequently bases his
most catchy jams on popular hits, and some of them are not old enough to be
called classic. His hit "Pray" was laid down over riffs from Prince's 1984 hit
"When Doves Cry," from the album Purple Rain.
49. Whitney C. Broussard, "Current and Suggested Business Practices for
the Licensing of Digital Samples," Loyola Entertainment Law journal 2 (1991): 479.
50. "Ice Ice Baby" was certified platinum on Oct. 9,1990, when its sales ex-
ceeded one million. After the success was certified, the original artists, record
company, and publisher all sought compensation for the use of the sample. The
matter was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. See Harvard Law Re-
view 105 (1992): 728.
 224 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

51. Greg Tate, "Diary of a Bug," Village Voice, Nov. 22,1988, p. 73.
52. Run DMC, "Walk This Way," from Raising Hell (New York: Profile
Records, 1986). This was the first rap hit to get extensive play on MTV and more
"mainstream" rock radio. It had a profound effect on those of us who grew up
during the 1980s in suburban America. When we heard that three Adidas-clad
men from Hollis, Queens, were down with mid-seventies rock like Aerosmith,
it showed us that rap might just have something to say to us, or at least some
fun to offer us. For an explanation of how "discursive communities" create
meaning, see Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1980).
53. George Lipsitz, "The Hip Hop Hearings: Censorship, Social Memory,
and Intergenerational Tensions among African Americans," in Joe Austin and
Michael Nevin Willard, eds., Generations of Youth: Youth Cultures and History in
Twentieth-Century America (New York: New York University Press, 1998), p. 405.
54. John Leland, "Singles," Spin, August 1988, p. 80. Urban hip-hop is not
the only subculture assaulting the foundations of creative ownership. Cyber-
punk theory frequently pushes the notion of the end of proprietary information.
Cybermusician Lisa Sirois of the Boston band DDT says: "We're no longer play-
ing instruments, we're programming. We sequence music on a computer, store
it on a hard disc, and then record it onto digital audio tape. Then, when we per-
form, we supplement it with live drums and keyboards. We're live and on tape.
We play on an electronic stage." See Nathan Cobb, "Terminal Chic: Cyberpunk
Subculture Swimming Closer to the Surface," Boston Globe, Nov. 24,1992.
55. The 1915 case Boosey v. Empire Music Co. indicated that lifting six notes
or more may be a violation. The 1952 case Northern Music Corp. v. King Record
Distribution Co. indicated that as little as four bars of music may be a violation
of a work. But United States v. Taxe in 1974 complicated any such formulas. The
defendant recorded hit songs and electronically altered their speed and pitch.
Strange noises were added throughout. The court was not persuaded that the
defendant's works were simply "derivative," and ruled that the very recaptur-
ing of another's sound is a violation. For an explanation, see Allen, p. 190.
56. Sanjek, p. 609.
57. Note, "A New Spin on Music Sampling: A Case for Fair Play," Harvard
haw Review (Jan. 1992): 726.
58. Allen, p. 102.
59. "A New Spin on Music Sampling," p. 729.
60. Broussard, p. 502.
61. Richard Harrington, "The Groove Robbers' Judgement," Washington
Post, December 25,1991, p. D l .
62. Biz Markie, "Alone Again," from I Need a Haircut (New York: Cold
Chillin' Records, 1991). Since the lawsuit, this original version of the album has
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 225

been very hard to find. Printings after 1991 do not contain "Alone Again."
Warner Bros, ordered all record stores to return copies of the album after the set-
tlement. I searched used record stores for five years to get a copy so I could hear
the song in question. Fortunately, in the fall of 1998,1 discovered that Wesleyan
University student Kabir Sen owned a copy of the original pressing. He lent it
to me so I could complete this section.
63. Harrington. Also see Susan Upton Douglass and Craig S. Mende, "Hey,
They're Playing My Song! Litigating Music Copyrights," New York Law Journal
J u l y 14,1997): SI.
64. Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, 91 Civ. 7648 (KTD),
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 780 F. Supp.
182 (1991).
65. Chuck Philips, "Songwriter Wins Large Settlement in Rap Suit," Los
Angeles Times, January 1, 1992, p. F l . Also see David Goldberg and Robert
J. Bernstein, "Reflections on Sampling," New York Law journal (January 15,
1993): 3.
66. Douglass and Mende, p. SI.
67. Public Enemy, "Caught—Can We Get a Witness?" on It Takes a Nation
of Millions to Hold Us Back (New York: Def Jam/Columbia Records, 1988).
68. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). See Mel Marquis,
"Fair Use and the First Amendment: Parody and Its Protections," Seton Hall
Constitutional Law Journal (1997).
69. MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180 (2d Cir. 1981). In the ruling for the case
Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d 432 (1986), the court wrote,

In MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, the court held the doctrine of fair use inappli-
cable in the case of a song called "Cunnilingus Champion of Company
C," which closely tracked the music and meter of the 40's standard,
"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B." The composers of "Cham-
pion," which was created for performance in the off-Broadway musi-
cal Let My People Come, admitted that the song was not originally con-
ceived as a parody of "Bugle Boy." Rather, they had copied the origi-
nal because it was "immediately identifiable as something happy and
joyous and it brought back a certain period in our history when we felt
that way." 677 F.2d at 184 (quoting uncited trial record). Central to the
court's holding was the determination that "Champion" was not a
parody of "Bugle Boy"; in copying "Bugle Boy" almost verbatim, the
composers' purpose was simply to reap the advantages of a well-
known tune and short-cut the rigors of composing original music.

Also see MGM v. Showcase Atlanta Cooperative Productions, 479 F. Supp. 351, 357
(1981). Also see Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988); Cliffs Notes, Inc. v.
 226 NOTES TO CHAPTER 4

Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 886 F. 2d 490,493 (2d Cir. 1989); For the
solidification of parody protection, see Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d 432, 434 n.2 (9th
Cir. 1986). Also see Anastasia P. Winslow, "Rapping on a Revolving Door: An
Economic Analysis of Parody and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.," South-
ern California Law Review 69 (1996).
70. Benny v. Leow's, Inc., 239 F. 2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956).
71. Berlin v. EC Publications, Inc., 329 F. 2d 541 (2d Cir. 1964).
72. Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741
(S.D.N.Y), add'd, 623 F. 2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980).
73. Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d 432 (9th Cir 1986).
74. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose.
75. Souter's ruling, however, came a couple of years too late for two other
parodists who were denied relief by federal courts. For the painful ordeal that
the avant-garde music group Negativeland had to endure when Island Records
filed suit against the group and its label for a sampled parody of the Irish rock
group U2, see Negativeland, Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Number 2
(Concord, Calif.: Seeland, 1995). Just as painful, artist Jeff Koons designed a
sculpture that parodied a photograph postcard of a rural American couple
holding a litter of puppies. Art Rogers, the photographer of the original, sued
Koons and won. Rodgers v. Koons, 960 F. 2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992). See Vilis Inde, Art
in the Courtroom (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998). Also see Rosemary Coombe,
The Cultural Life of Intellectual Property: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1998). The culture industries and their law-
yers still seem to resist the idea that parody is fair use. See Alex Kuczynski,
"Parody of Talk Magazine Upsets Disney," New York Times, July 19,1999, p. C10.

NOTES TO CHAPTER S

1. Herbie Hancock is now committed to closing the "digital divide." He

founded the Rhythm of Life Organization in 1996 to fund technological pro-
grams for underprivileged communities. For information on Herbie Hancock's
Rhythm of Life Foundation, see http://www.imhotech.com/rolo/.
2. http://www.net.org/html/history/detail/1983-midi.html.
3. Al Willis, Nicole Hampton, and Adam Wallace, "MIDI: A Beginners'
Guide," http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim419/midi/HTMLs/MIDHIS~l
.HTM.
4. Herbie Hancock, "Cantaloupe Island," Empyrean Isle (New York: Blue
Note Records, 1964). Us3, "Cantaloop," Hand on the Torch (New York: Blue Note
Records, 1993).
5. Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from
Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill & Wang, 1994), p. 197.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 5 227

6. For a brief account of the controversies over software patents, which be-
came available only in the late 1980s, see James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and
Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1996), pp. 132-34. also see Andrew Chin, "Computational
Complexity and the Scope of Software Patents," Jurimetrics (Fall 1998): 17-27.
Among the best work on software patents and the idea of a sui generis area of
"intellectual property" for software is Pamela Samuelson et al., "A Manifesto
concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs," Columbia Law Review
94 (1994).
7. John Perry Barlow, "The Economy of Ideas: Everything You Know about
Intellectual Property is Wrong," Wired, March 1994.
8. For an account of Richard Stallman's influence on the "Open Source" or
"Free Software" movement, see Peter Wayner, Free for All: How Linux and the Free
Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans (New York: Harper Business,
2000). Also see the Salon Free Software Project at www.salon.com.
9. Richard Stallman, "The GNU Manifesto," at www.gnu.org/gnu/
manifesto.
10. Stallman, "What Is Free Software," at www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.html.
11. Stallman, "What Is Copyleft," at www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html.
12. Goldstein, pp. 199-236.
13. "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:
The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights," September
1995. See Boyle, pp. 132-43. Also see Pamela Samuelson, "Legally Speaking:
The Nil Intellectual Property Report," in Communications of the ACM, December
1994.
14. For an explanation of the Madisonian intentions for copyright law to
encourage free and rich speech, see Neil Weinstock Netanel, "Copyright and
Democratic Civil Society," Yale Law Journal (November 1996): 292-386.
15. For a brief outline of the three treaties, see Eric Schwartz, "International
Outlook: Impact of the Two New WIPO Treaties," Intellectual Property Strategist
(January 1997): 1. For an in-depth examination of how both dangerous and un-
necessary the database treaty is, see J. H. Reichman and Pamela Samuelson,
"Intellectual Property Rights in Data?" Vanderbilt Law Review (January 1997):
49-166.
16. Jukka Liedes, "Copyright: Evolution, Not Revolution," Science, April
11,1997, p. 223.
17. See Julius Marke, "Database Protection Acts and the 105th Congress,"
New York Law Journal (March 18,1997): 5. For a brief summary of Moral Rights,
see Goldstein.
18. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). For the "Chicago
 228 NOTES TO CHAPTER S

School" or "Law and Economics" critique of parody and fair use, see Richard
Posner, "When Is Parody Fair Use?" Journal of Legal Studies 21 (1992).
19. Susan Nycum, "Protection of Electronic Databases," Computer Lawyer
(August 1997): 12.
20. Carol Levin and Don Willmott, "Is It Mine On-line?" PC Magazine, Feb-
ruary 4,1997, p. 30.
21. John Dewey, Individualism, Old and New (New York: Capricorn Books,
1962), p. 154. My thanks to Neil Netanel for tipping me off to Dewey's in-
fluence on how intellectual property intersects with democracy. See Netanel,
p. 349.
22. U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8.
23. For an introduction to the fascinating world of Pac-man, see www
.gamecenter.com.
24. Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F. 2d
607 (7th Cir. 1982). For the legal background to the Pac-man disputes, see Law-
rence D. Graham, Legal Battles That Shaped the Computer Industry (Westport,
Conn.: Quorum Books, 1999), pp. 25-32.
25. Graham, p. 80.
26. Graham, p. 81.
27. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 545 F. Supp. 812 (E.D.
Penn. 1982), rev'd, 714 F. 2d 1240 (3d Cir 1983). For histories of Apple Computer,
Inc., see Jim Carlton, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business
Blunders (New York: Times Business, 1997); Michael Malone, Infinite Loop: How
the World's Most Insanely Great Computer Company Went Insane (New York: Dou-
bleday, 1999); Owen Linzmayer, Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Com-
puter, Inc. (San Francisco: No Starch Press, 1999). For a history of the Macintosh
computer, see Steven Levy, Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the
Computer that Changed Everything (New York: Penguin, 2000).
28. For an account of the Revolutionary developments at Xerox PARC, see
Michael Hiltzik, Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer
Age (New York: HarperBusiness, 1999).
29. Levy, pp. 77-103.
30. For a history of Microsoft, see James Wallace and Jim Erickson, Hard
Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1992).
31. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 709 F. Supp. 925 (N.D. Cal. 1989);
717 F. Supp. 1428 (N.D. Cal. 1989); The appellate decision is Apple Computer, Inc.
v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F. 3d 1438 (9th Cir. 1994). See Graham, pp. 53-61.
32. See Julie Cohen, "Lochner in Cyberspace," Michigan Law Review (No-
vember 1998): 462-562. Also see Siva Vaidhyanathan, testimony at the anticir-
cumvention hearings of the Copyright Office, http:/ /lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
1201/hearings/.
 NOTES TO CHAPTER 5 229

33. OpenLaw forum, "DVD/DeCSS Forum Frequently Asked Questions

(FAQ List," March 6, 2000, www.iag.net/aleris/dvdfaq.txt.
34. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. v. Shawn C. Reimerdes et al, 111 F. Supp.
2d 294, 2000 SDNY, August 17, 2000, decided. According to this federal court
decision, distributing DeCSS code is illegal in 2000.
35. Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New
York: Vintage Books, 1993), pp. 71-72.
36. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic
Books, 1999), p. 135.
37. See www.billboard.com. The user license is available at Secure.teles-
can.com/bblicense.asp.
38. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, August 10,
2000. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, "MP3: It's Only Rock & Roll and The Kids are
Alright," Nation, July 24, 2000, http://www.thenation.com:80/issue/000724/
0724vaidhy anathan .shtml.
39. Friedrich von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1994).
40. See http:/ /gnutella.wego.com/. The Free Software Foundation has ex-
pressed some doubts about whether Gnutella is actually "open source" or "free
software." As Richard Stallman writes,

Gnutella is not actually GNU software, and we cannot be sure it is ac-

tually free software. In fact, it is extremely difficult to find information
about the program at all. Perhaps the original developers picked the
name because they wanted it to be GNU software someday, but their
employers stamped out the project, and it does not seem to have been
released as free software.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gnutella.html.
41. For information on the Secure Digital Music Initiative, see http://
www.sdmi.org/.
42. Michael Learmoth, "AOL and Intertrust: 'A Legal Napster,'" The Indus-
try Standard, July 3,2000, www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16564,00
.html.
43. Robert Wright, "Rock 'n' Roll Heaven," Slate, July 31, 2000, Slate.msn
.com/earthling/00-07-31/Earthling.asp. Also see Wright, "Tuesdays without
Morrie?" Slate, August 4, 2000, Slate.msn.com/earthling/00-08-04/earthling
.asp. A similar string of discussion about "the end of copyright" occurred on a
forum called the Coalition for Networked Information back in 1993. See www
.cni.org/hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0246.html.
44. Peter Jaszi, "Is This the End of Copyright As We Know It?" a talk given
at the Nordinfo Conference, Oct. 9-10,1997, in Stockholm, Sweden. The text is
available at webserver.law.yale.edu/censor/jaszi.htm.
 230 NOTES TO THE EPILOGUE

NOTES TO THE EPILOGUE

1. Lijntje Zandee, "Martha Graham and Modern American Dance," http:/ /

www.let.uu.nl/hist/ams/xroads/dance.htm.
2. See http:/ / cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/index .html.
3. Brenda Dixon Gottschild, Digging the Africanist Presence in American Per-
formance: Dance and Other Contexts (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996),
pp. 4 7 ^ 9 .
4. Sarah Kaufman, "Dances in the Public Domain? Graham Works May
Lack Copyright Protection," Washington Post, July 28, 2000, p. C I .
5. Alex Kuczynski, "Parody of Talk Magazine Upsets Disney," New York
Times, July 19,1999, p. CIO.
6. Todd Gillman, "Studio Seeks to Ground Kirk's Ads," Dallas Morning
News, April 27,1999, p. 16A.
7. "Cost of Swiping the Punchline: Lawsuit," New York Post, Aug. 17, 2000,
p. 35.
8. See FreeRepublic.com at http://www.freerepublic.com/. Thanks to
Yochai Benkler for alerting me to this incident. Benkler's analysis of it is in Ben-
kler, "Free As the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclo-
sure of the Public Domain," New York University Law Review (May 1999): 357. For
information on the Copyright Clearance Center, see http://www.copyright
.com/.
9. Pia Pera, Lo's Diary (New York: Foxrock, 1999), p. ix.
10. Rosemary Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship,
Appropriation, and the Law (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 128. Also
see Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Tans and Participatory Culture
(New York: Routledge, 1992).
Index
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 229n. 38
Abie's Irish Rose, 106-112
Abraham, 28-29
Abrahams, Roger, 220n. 24
Adams, John Quincy, 51, 111
Addams Family, The (film), 114
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 59-61,
66-67,69
Aerosmith, 138,144
African American traditions, 4 , 1 2 - 1 3 ,
221n. 33; and blues aesthetics, 125,134,
218-219 nn. 3-14. See also Oral tradi-
tions; Twain, Mark (Samuel L. Clemens)
Afrodiasporic culture, 131
Alcott, Louisa May, 54
Ali, Muhammad, 134
"Alone Again (Naturally)," 141-145
America Online. See AOL Time Warner
American Bar Association, 12
American Copyright League, 54-55
American Mutoscope and Biograph Com-
pany (Biograph), 83, 97-99; and Edison,
87-93. See also Edison, Thomas Alva;
Griffith, David Wark
American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edi-
son Manufacturing Co., 210-211 nn.
17-19. See also Patents Company
American Society of Composers, Authors,
and Publishers (ASCAP), 2 9 , 1 3 1 ,
220n. 22
Amistad (film), 11-112,216n. 47. See also
Derivative works; Idea/expression di-
chotomy
Amos V Andy, 104
AOL Time Warner, 2 , 1 0 , 1 5 7 , 1 8 2
Appalachian Spring, 189
Apple Computer Corporation, 4,176;
Macintosh graphical user interface
(GUI), 167-168; and Microsoft, 4,
167-168,171-174, 228n. 21
Apple Computer, Inc., v. Franklin Computer
Corp., 228n. 27
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
228n. 31
Aquinas, Thomas, 197-198n. 3
Arc Music, 218-219n. 11,223n. 44. See also
Dixon, Willie
Architecture, protection of, 18, 24
Art Buchwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
217n. 51. See also Idea protection
AT&T, 154-156
Atari, Inc., v. North American Philips Con-
sumer Electronics Corp., 228n. 24. See
also Derivative works; Idea/expression
dichotomy; Pac-man
Atlantic Monthly, 3 3 , 4 8 , 5 5 , 6 5 - 6 6 . See also
Howells, William Dean
Audience response, 14. See also African
American traditions; Oral traditions
"Author-function," 193-194n. 11. See also
Foucault, Michel
Authors' Club, 53-55
Authorship, theories of, 8-11; definition of
romantic, 193-194n. 11; history of, 8-11,
46,200-201n. 25
Baird, Henry Carey, 54
Baker v. Seiden, 29-30, 49,195n. 20. See also
Idea/expression dichotomy
Bambaataa, Afrika, 221nn. 29-31
Banzhaf, Albert, 99-105
Barlow, John Perry, 153-154,182-183,
227n. 7
Barnes, Hattie Delaro, 90-91
Barnes v. Miner et ah, 210n. 15. See Barnes,
Hattie Delaro
Barron's, 188
Barthes, Roland, 9-11,193n. 10,196n. 23,
210n. 14; on narrative theory and
"lexia," 215-216nn. 43-45
231
 232 INDEX

Baseball, 17-18,165-166 Bowker, Richard Rogers, 54

Beach Boys, 120, 223n. 44 Boyle, James, 191n. 4, 227n. 13
Beastie Boys, 119,140 Brandeis, Louis, 24,195n. 10
Beatles, the, 126,140 Breil, Joseph Carl, 103-104
Becker v. Lowe's, Inc., 216n. 46 Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs
Becker, Walter, 129 Music, Ltd., 219nn. 15-18. See also
Beecher, Henry Ward, 54 Derivative works; Idea/expression
Belknap, Jeremy, 44 dichotomy
Benhabib, Seyla, 191n. 5 Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI), 131,
Ben-Hur (film), 9 3 - 9 6 , 1 0 3 , 211n. 20; legal 139,220n. 22
and film history of, 212n. 23 Brown, James, 134,139,221n. 30
Benkler, Yochai, 230n. 8 Brown, Tina, 187
Benny, Jack, 147 Brylawski, Fulton, 101-105
Benny v. Lowe's, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also Buchwald, Art, 33-34,115-116, 217n. 51
Parody "Bundle of rights," 20-21. See also Licens-
Bentham, Jeremy, 199n. 13 ing fees, negotiation of
Bergman, Ingrid, 1 Byrd, Donald, 149
Berkie v. Crichton, 217n. 50. See also "Total
concept and feel," or "total look and California, University of, 69,155,
feel" 206-207n. 68, 69. See also Mark Twain
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Papers; UNIX operating system
176-177 Calloway, Cab, 134
Berlin, Irving, 106,147,189 Campbell, Joseph, 189
Berlin v. EC Publications, Inc., 225-226nn. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 145-148,
68-75. See also Parody 162-163,195n. 13,225-226nn. 68-75,
Berry, Chuck, 120,128,130,223n. 44 227-228n. 18. See also Fair use; Parody
Bible, 1 , 2 8 , 3 0 ; Ecclesiastes, 1 Caponi-Tabery, Gena Dagel, 194n. 16,
Billboard.com, 178,229n. 37 218n. 7,219n. 13
Biograph Company. See American Carey, James, 193n. 7
Mutoscope and Biograph Company Carlyle, Thomas, 47, 51, 84-86, 209-210nn.
(Biograph) 6-8
Blackstone, William, 41, 71,199n. 13 Carnegie Hall, 84
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithograph Co., 95, "Casey at the Bat," 163
211-212n. 22 Celestial Jukebox, 156-159,177
Blow, Kurtis, 180 Century Magazine, 54, 61
Blues Heaven Foundation, 118, Charles L. Webster and Company, 62
217-218nn. 2-3 Chase-Riboud, Barbara, 111-112
Blues music, 14-15,117-126. See also "Cheap books" movement, 3 6 , 4 5 , 5 0 - 5 5
African American traditions; Dixon, Chess Records, 120-121, 217n. 2,
Willie; Murray, Albert; Waters, Muddy 218-219n. 11
(McKinley Morganfield) Chic, 132,221n. 30
Bogart, Humphrey, 2 Chiffons, the, 126-129
Bontemps, Arna, 220n. 24 Chin, Andrew, 227n. 6
"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B, China, Peoples' Republic of, 3
The," 139, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also Christian Science, 56, 62-65
Parody Christmas Carol, A, 50
Boosey v. Empire Music Co., 224n. 55 Clapton, Eric, 119
Booty Call (film), 115 Clash, the, 223n. 45
Boston Globe, 188 Clay, Henry, 51
Bowie, David, 138 Clickwrap licenses, 178

Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, 225-226nn. 68-75. See
also Parody
Clinton, George, 134,137,221n. 29
Clinton, William Jefferson (Bill), 159-164,
181
Coca-Cola, protection of trademark, 18-20
Cohen, Julie, 228n. 32
Cohens and the Kellys, The (film), 106-112
Cold Chillin' Records, 141-145
Collins, Bootsy, 138
Coming to America (film), 33-34, 115-116
Common law, 41-43,199-200n. 13. See also
Blackstone, William; Holmes, Oliver
Wendell Jr.
Computer software, protection of, 24,
153-162
Connecticut, copyright law, 44
Constitutional Convention, 22-25, 28,
44-45. See also Madison, James
Content Scrambling System (CSS),
176-177
Coombe, Rosemary, 19,194n. 2,
225-226nn. 68-75,230n. 10. See also Par-
ody; Trademark law
Cooper, James Fenimore, 84, 97
Copland, Aaron, 185
Copyleft software licenses, 156; 227nn.
8-11. See also Stallman, Richard
Copyright Act of 1 7 9 0 , 2 2 , 4 3 ^ 7
Copyright Act of 1842 (United King-
dom), 47
Copyright Act of 1870,202n. 31. See also
Stowe v. Thomas
Copyright Act of 1 9 0 9 , 7 9 , 9 9 - 1 0 3 , 2 1 4 n .
33. See also Works made for hire
Copyright Act of 1976,27, 79; and
idea/expression dichotomy, 29; and
move toward European principles, 36
Copyright Clearance Center, 188, 230n. 8
Copyright law, Canada, 56, 70. See also
Copyright law, United Kingdom;
Piracy; Twain, Mark (Samuel L.
Clemens)
Copyright law, Europe, 26, 33. See also
Copyright law, United Kingdom; Moral
rights
Copyright law, United Kingdom, 26,
37-43; duration of, 70; romantic move-
ment in, 47-48. See also Copyright law,
INDEX 233
Canada; Copyright law, Europe;
Macaulay, Lord Thomas Babington;
Treaties; Twain, Mark (Samuel L.
Clemens)
Copyright law, United States, as instru-
ment of censorship, 28, 37; institutions
involved in, 7; original purpose of, 4-6,
2 1 , 2 2 - 2 5 ; and public domain, 21; public
perceptions of, 34, 37; as state-granted
monopoly, 22-25; as a tax on the read-
ing public, 21; theories of, 4 - 8 ; "thick"
and "thin" protection, 7-8
Copyright Office of the Library of Con-
gress, 25, 99-100,175
Copyright, term of protection, 25, 28, 45,
71, 79-80; and Copyright Act of 1909,
214n. 33; and proposals for perpetual
terms, 62. See also Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1988; Public domain;
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act of 1998; Twain, Mark (Samuel L.
Clemens)
Cord, Mary Ann, 65-69, 78
Corporate copyrights, 99,101-103. See also
Copyright Act of 1909; Works made for
hire
Creedence Clearwater Revival, 129-131,
219-220nn. 20-21
Cromwell, Oliver, 83-86
"Cunnilingus Champion of Company C,"
146-147,225-226nn. 68-75. See also
Parody
D, Chuck, 119; on digital sampling,
144-145; on Napster, 180
D, Schoolly, 132-133,220n. 24
Dallas, Texas, 187
Databases, protection of, 18, 2 7 , 3 0 , 1 6 1 ,
163-167,174,227n. 15; effect on scholar-
ship, 165-167. See also Baseball; Feist
Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Ser-
vice; Idea/expression dichotomy
Davidson, Cathy N., 8,193n. 9 , 2 0 0 -
201n. 25
Davis, Miles, 10,149
De La Soul, 141
Declaration of Independence, U.S., 31,186
DeCSS (descrambles Content Scrambling
System), 176-177
Dees, Rick, 147-148
 234 INDEX
Def American Records, 143
Def Jam Records, 220-221n. 28
Deming, W. Edwards, 181
d'Entreves, Maurizio Passerin, 191n. 5
Department of Justice, U.S., 185
Derivative works, 20, 84-86
Derrida, Jacques, 23n. 196
Devil's Advocate, The (film), 115
Dewey, John, 6-8,166,193nn. 7-8,
228n. 21
Dickens, Charles, 36, 84, 203n. 35; and
American piracy, 50-52; and American
slavery, 51
Diddley, Bo, 130,134
Digital audio tapes (DAT), 3
Digital formats, characteristics of, 151
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,
28; anticircumvention provision of, 28;
provisions of, 174-175; as a technologi-
cal evasion of deliberation and legisla-
tion, 159. See also Digital Video Discs
(DVD); Napster
"Digital moment," 151-153
Digital sampling, 15,131; aesthetics of,
137-138; Caribbean roots of, 135-137;
democratizing effect on music, 138-139;
history of, 132-140; sampling machines,
223n. 46; as a transgressive act, 132-138.
See also Hancock, Herbie; Markie, Biz;
Rap music
Digital Video Discs (DVDs), 3,176-177
Digitization, process of, 14,151. See also
"Digital moment"; Hancock, Herbie;
Napster
Dishonored Lady, 107-112
Diskjockeys, 135-137
Dixon, Shirley, 117
Dixon, Thomas, 8 3 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ; and The
Clansman, 213-214n. 28, 31. See also Grif-
fith, David Wark
Dixon, Willie, 8,117-119,129, 217-218nn.
1-3, 6. See also African American tradi-
tions; Blues music; Chess Records; Led
Zeppelin; Waters, Muddy (McKinley
Morganfield)
Dolmetsch, Carl, 206n. 68
Dolphy, Eric, 149
Donaldson v. Beckett, 43,194n. 13, 200n. 17
Doyno, Victor, 59-60,195n. 12,204n. 49,
206n. 68
Dozens, playing the, 134—135. See also
African American traditions
Drahos, Peter, 198-199n. 12
DreamWorks SKG, 111-112
Droit d'auteur. See Moral rights
Droit moral. See Moral rights
Dubbing, 136
Duffy, Kevin Thomas, 142-143
Dürkheim, Emile, 196n. 23
D. W. Griffith Corporation, 104-105. See
also Griffith, David Wark; Works made
for hire
Dylan, Bob, 29,195n. 17
East India Company, 166
Ecclesiastes, 1
Eco, Umberto, 196n. 23
Eddy, Mary Baker, 56, 62-65,193n. 11
Edgeworth, Maria, 51
Edison, Thomas Alva, 82; and the Patents
Company, 87-93
Edison v. Lubin, 89-90, 210nn. 13-14
Eisner, Michael, 5
Electronic Frontier Foundation, 153-154,
176-177
Eliot, George, 84,97
Ellison, Ralph, 67, 205n. 66
Elmira, New York, 65-66
Eisernere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting
Co., 225-226nn. 68-75. See also Parody
Epoch Productions, 104
Europe, protection of copyrighted works
in. See copyright law, Europe; Copy-
right law, United Kingdom
Evans, David, 121-122,218n. 8
Fagen, Donald, 129
Fair use, 3, 26-28, 79-80,109; non-eco-
nomic value of, 158; parody as, 145-148;
transaction costs, 157-158
Fanning, Sean, 179
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 129-131,
219-220nn. 20-21
Federalist, The, 22, 45. See also Madison,
James
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
Service, 30,163-167,195n. 11,196n. 21.
See also Database protection; Idea/ex-
pression dichotomy
Ferris, William, 124-125, 218n. 6

Finnegan, Ruth, 221-222n. 33
Fireside Library, 53
First sale doctrine, 174-175
Fish, Stanley, 196n. 23,224n. 52
Fisher v. Dees, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also
Parody
Fishkin, Shelley Fisher, 204-205n. 63
Flash, Grandmaster, 180
Fleming, Ian, 189
Fogerty, John, 129-131, 219-220nn. 20-21
Foucault, Michel, 9-11; on the "author-
function," 193-194n. 11,196n. 23,
200-201n. 25
Franklin Computer Corporation,
170-171
Franklin Square Library, 53
"Free software," 155-156,227nn. 8-11;
229n. 40. See Stallman, Richard
FreeRepublic.com, 187-188,230n. 8
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, 202-203n. 31
Full Monty, The (film), 115
Ganesha, Lord, 193n. 11
Gates, Henry Louis, 194n. 15,220n. 24,
221-222n. 33
Gates, William (Bill), 5, 87, 228n. 30. See
also Microsoft Corporation
Gehrig, Lou, 165
George, Henry, 54
George, Nelson, 119,218n. 5,220n. 32
Gillespie, Dizzy, 135
Gillman, Susan, 197n. 2
Gilroy, Paul, 219n. 13
Ginsburg, Jane, 207n. 74
"GNU General Public License," 156,
227nn. 8-11
"GNU Manifesto," 155-156,227nn. 8-11
Gnutella, 181-182,229n. 40
Goldstein, Paul, 151,156-159,195n. 14,
197n. 3, 207n. 74,226n. 5; on Oliver
Wendell Holmes Jr., 211-212n. 22
Gordon, Dexter, 149
Gottschild, Brenda Dixon, 186, 219n. 13,
230n. 3. See also African American
traditions
Graham, Martha, 185-186,189, 230nn.
1-4; and the public domain, 186
Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros.
Records, 224-225nn. 62-66. See also Digi-
tal sampling
INDEX 235
Grant, Ulysses S., 62; tomb of, 91-92
Graphical user interface (GUI), 167-174
"Great Republic's Peanut Stand, The,"
69-80; history of and scholarship about,
206-208nn. 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 5 - 8 2
Greater New York Film Rental Company,
92-93
Grateful Dead, 154,179
Green Party, U.S., 187
Griffith, David Wark, 83-87; and The Birth
of a Nation, 83,100-101; and Broken Blos-
soms, 104-105; and "The Death Disc,"
83-86,105; and distribution companies,
104-105; and early film business prac-
tices, 96-105; and Hearts of the World,
101; and Intolerance; and musical score
composition, 103-104; and Rescued from
an Eagle's Nest, 91
H. R. Pufnstuf, 112-115,169,216-217n. 48
Habermas, Jurgen, 6-7,191n. 5. See also
Public sphere
Hamburglar, 216-217n. 48
Hammer, M. C , 137,223n. 48
Hancock, Herbie, 149-152,226nn. 1-4
Hand, Learned, 105-115,127,130-131; in-
tellectual influences, 105; as a narrative
theorist, 215-216nn. 43-45
Hardy, Thomas, 52-53
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation En-
terprises, 196n. 21. See also Fair use
Harper Bros, et al. v. Klaw et ah, 212n. 23.
See also Ben-Hur
Harper Brothers, 52-55, 84; Kalem v.
Harper Bros. (Ben-Hur case), 94-96, 212n.
23. See also Harper & Row, Publishers,
Inc. v. Nation Enterprises; Twain, Mark
(Samuel L. Clemens)
Harper's Monthly, 8 3 , 8 4
Harris, Joel Chandler, 54, 66
Harrison, George, 126-131, 219n. 15
Harte, Bret, 54
Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 217n. 50.
See also "Total concept and feel," or
"total look and feel"
Harvard Law Review, 140
Hayek, Freidrich von, 181, 229n. 39
Hayes, Isaac, 134
Hearst Magazines, 187
Hebdige, Dick, 135-136,222-223n. 34-42
 236 INDEX

Hein v. Harris, 215n. 40. See also Hand, See also World Intellectual Property Or-
Learned ganization (WIPO)
Here, Kool, 136-137 International News Service v. Associated
Hirst, Robert, 206-207n. 68, 69 Press, 195n. 10
Holly, Buddy, 128 Irving, Washington, 51
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr., 13, 95-96,105,
199-200n. 13; and litigation over fa- Jackson, Helen Hunt, 98; publishing his-
ther's literary estate, 211-212n. 22 tory of, 213n. 26
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Sr., 54, 211-212n. Jackson, Michael, 140
22; and Mark Twain, 64 James, Rick, 137,223n. 48
Holmes v. Donahue et ah, 2 U - 2 1 2 n . 22 James, William, 105
Holmes v. Hurst, 211-212n. 22 Jarrett, Keith, 129
Holt, Henry, 52-53,203n. 35 Jaszi, Peter, 183-184,191n. 4, 208-209n. 1;
Home Box Office, 157 on the "end of copyright," 229n. 44
Homestead, Melissa, 49-50,202-203n. 31 JAVA, 161-162
House of Lords, 42 Jefferson, Thomas, 22-25, 32-33, 71,194n.
House, Son, 120-126 15,195nn. 8-10,221-222n. 33
Howells, William Dean, 35, 55-56, 65-66, Jobs, Steve, 172. See also Apple Computer
84,197n. 1. See also Atlantic Monthly Corporation
Huggrnkis, Amanda, 216n. 12 Johanson, Jon, 176-177
Hughes, Langston, 220n. 24 Johnson, Robert, 120-126, 218n. 10. See
Hume, David, 194n. 15,221-222n. 33 also Blues music
Hurston, Zora Neale, 13-14,194n. 16, Johnson, Walter "Big Train," 165
221-222n. 33 Jones, Quincy, 149
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 225-226nn. Joyce, James, 215n. 40
68-75. See also Parody
Hypertext markup language (HTML), 152 K. C. Munchkin, 168-170,173
Kalem v. Harper Bros., 95-97,212n. 23.
IBM, 154,172 See also Ben-Hur; Holmes, Oliver
Ice, Vanilla, 138,223n. 50 Wendell Jr.
Idea protection, 15,23, 28-30, 33-34. See Kaltenleutgeben, Austria, 69
also Idea/expression dichotomy Kaplan, Benjamin, 198n. 4,208-209n. 1
Idea theft. See Idea protection Kaylan, Howard, 141
Idea/expression dichotomy, 1 3 , 1 5 , 2 8 - 3 4 , Keil, Charles, 218n. 3
85-86, 9 4 - 9 6 , 1 6 8 , 2 1 5 n . 42; Learned Keller, Helen, 63-65, 69,205n. 67,
Hand on, 106-112; Oliver Wendell 221-222n. 33. See also Plagiarism
Holmes Ir. on, 94-96; and music, Kern, Jerome, 106
117-118; state of during "digital mo- Kinetoscope, 87-88
ment," 174; Mark Twain on, 78-80. See Kipling, Rudyard, 97
also Databases, protection of Kirk, Ron, 187
Information, protection of, 25. See also Kirsch, Jonathan, 29,195n. 18
Brandeis, Louis; Databases, protection Knapp, Stephen, 196n. 23
of; Idea/expression dichotomy; Jeffer- Koons, Jeff, 3, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also
son, Thomas Parody
"Intellectual policy," 12 Kraftwerk, 221n. 30
Intellectual property, 2-3; definitions of Krofft, Sid and Marty, 112-115
and forms of, 18-21; erosion of distinc- Krofft v. McDonald's, 112-115, 216-217n. 48.
tions among forms of, 153; history of See also Derivative works; Idea/expres-
phrase, 11-15; and "property talk," sion dichotomy
11-15; recent controversies about, 3 ^ . Kuhn, Thomas, 196n. 23

Lakeside Library, 52-55
Landis, John, 196n. 26,217n. 51
Landis, Kennesaw Mountain, 165
"Law and Economics," 157,227-228n. 18.
See also Fair use; Parody
Led Zeppelin, 117-119,132-133,137,143,
217-218nn.1-3
Lehman, Bruce, 163-164
Lehman-Haupt, Hellmut, 200n. 22
Lemley, Mark, 10,191n. 4,194nn. 12,14,
208-209n. 1,216n. 47
Lennon, John, 129
Lessig Lawrence, 177-178,229n. 36
Let My People Come, 146-147. See also
Parody
Letty Lynton (film), 107-112
Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 196n. 23
Lexia, 215-216nn. 43-45. See also Barthes,
Roland; Hand, Learned
Librarians, 164,174,176
Library of Congress, 25, 89, 99-100; and
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
of 1998 (DMCA), 174,176. See also
Copyright Office of the Library of
Congress
Library of Select Novels, 53
Licensing fees, negotiation of, 14, 21. See
also "Bundle of rights"
Lieber, Jerry, 179
Limp Bizkit, 119
LINUX operating system, 156; and digital
video discs (DVDs), 176-177
Lippmann, Walter, 6-8,193n. 7
Lipsitz, George, 138, 224n. 53
Litchfield v. Spielberg, 217n. 50. See also
"Total concept and feel," of "total look
and feel"
Little, Brown and Company, 98,103
Loc, Tone, 137
Locke, John, 22,198-200rm. 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 ;
and "mixing metaphor" theory of
property, 42
Lolita, 188-189
Lomax, Alan, 120-126,218n. 7
London, Jack, 9 7 - 9 8 , 1 0 8 ; publication and
copyright history of, 212-213n. 24
London v. Biograph, 97-98,109, 212-213nn.
24-25. See also Derivative works;
Idea/expression dichotomy
Los Angeles Times, 188
INDEX 237
Lo's Diary, 188-189, 230n. 9
Lowell, lames Russell, 54
Lowe's Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System,
147. See also Parody
Lucas, George, 188-189
Lundberg v. Welles et al., 216n. 46
Macaulay, Lord Thomas Babington, 60, 71,
74-78
Mad, 147
Madison, James, 2 2 - 2 5 , 2 8 , 4 4 - 1 6 , 71, 78,
80,184,195nn. 6, 8, 207n. 73,227n. 14;
on copyright clause of the U.S. Consti-
tution, 200nn. 19,20
Mahabharata, 194-194n. 11
Majestic Pictures, 104
Mallon, Thomas, 205n. 67
Manchester, William, 205n. 67
Mark Twain Papers, 69, 206-207nn. 68, 69
Markie, Biz, 141-145, 224-225nn. 62-64
Martha Graham Dance Company, 185-186
Marx Brothers, 1-3, 81-82; as defendants
in copyright cases, 208-209n. 1 ; and
Duck Soup, 81; Chico Marx, 2; Groucho
Marx, 1-3; Harpo Marx, 1; and A Night
in Casablanca, 1; and Warner Brothers,
1-3
Massachusetts, colonial copyright
statute, 38
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
154
MasterCard, 187
Mathis, Johnny, 147-148
Matthews, Brander, 54-56
MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 225-226nn. 68-75. See
also Parody
McCarthy, Thomas, 191n. 5
McCheese, Mayor, 216-217n. 48
McDonald, Ronald, 216-217n. 48
McDonald's, 112-115,169
McGinness, Joe, 205n. 67
Mechanical rights, 131
Mencken, H. L., 215n. 40
Metallica, 189
MGMv. Showcase Atlanta Cooperative
Productions, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also
Parody
Michaels, Walter Benn, 196n. 23
Microsoft Corporation, 6 , 1 0 , 1 7 6 , 228n. 30;
and Apple Computer Corporation, 4,
 238 INDEX

Microsoft Corporation (continued) Nation, 229n. 38. See also Harper & Row,
167-168,171-174; and the RoUing Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
Stones, 118. See also Gates, Native American culture, 186
William (Bill) Natural law, 59
MIDI. See Musical Instrument Digital Negativeland, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also
Interface Parody
Midway Manufacturing Company, Netanel, Neil Weinstock, 191n. 4,195n. 7,
168-169 227n. 14, 228n. 21
Mifflin et al. v. Dutton et al, 211-212n. 22. New York Times, 188
See also Stowe, Harriett Beecher Newton, Adam, 215-216n. 45
Miles Davis Quintet, 149 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 106-112,
Mill, James, 199n. 13 215n. 42. See also Derivative works;
Mill, John Stuart, 199n. 13 Idea/expression dichotomy
Millar v. Taylor, 200n. 16 Nimmer, Melville, 28,195n. 1 5 , 2 1 3 -
Mississippi Delta, 14. See also African 214n. 31
American traditions; Blues music; Oral Noguchi, Isamu, 185
traditions; Waters, Muddy (McKinley Norris, Frank, 97
Morganfield) North American Review, 70
Monopoly, copyright as, 11, 38, 74-76 North Carolina, colonial copyright statute
Montgomery, Wes, 149 of 1785,200-201n. 25
Moore, Adam, 194n. 1 Northern Music Corp. v. King Record Distri-
Moral rights, 28, 33, 71-72. See also Eu- bution Co., 224n. 55
rope; Twain, Mark (Samuel L.
Clemens); 2 Live Crew; World Intellec- Object code, 154-156
tual Property Organization (WIPO) Onassis, Jacqueline Kennedy, 111
Motion Picture Association of America Ong, Walter, 221-222n. 33. See also Oral
(MPAA), 176-177 traditions
Mozart, Wolfgang, 152 Ono, Yoko, 129
MP3 digital music format, 179-182 "Open Source," 154-156
Ms. Pac-man, 169 Oral traditions, 4 , 1 3 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 n . 33. See also
MTV, 150 African American traditions; Twain,
Munsters, The, 114 Mark (Samuel L. Clemens)
Murdoch, Rupert, 5 Orbison, Roy, 3; and 2 Live Crew,
Murphy, Eddie, 33-34,115-116,196n. 26, 145-148
217n. 51. See also Idea protection Originality, 20
Murray, Albert, 218n. 3,219n. 13. See also O'Sullivan, Gilbert, 141-145,189
African American traditions; Blues
music Pac-man, 168-170,173
Musical composition, protection of, 24 Paige typesetting machine, 62
Musical Instrument Digital Interface Paine, Albert Bigelow, 206n. 68
(MIDI), 10,149-151,226nn. 1-4. See also Paine, Thomas, 44
Digital sampling; Hancock, Herbie Palmer, Robert, 218nn. 6, 9
Mutual Film Corporation, 99 Parker, Charlie, 135
Parkman, Frances, 54
Nabokov, Dmitri, 188-189,230n. 9 Parody, 145-148; as distinct from satire,
Nabokov, Vladimir, 188-189 148; as fair use, 26, 80,186-187,
Nader, Ralph, 187 227-228n. 18; restrictions by Digital Mil-
Napster, 3 , 1 7 9 - 1 8 4 , 1 8 5 ; attraction of, lennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 175.
179-180; invention of, 179; as a See also Fair use; Nader, Ralph; Talk
metaphorical public library, 180-181 magazine; 2 Live Crew
 INDEX 239

Patent law, 18-20,194n. 1; and software, Random access memory (RAM), 152-153,
227n. 6 161-162
Patents Company, 92-93 Ransom, Harry, 46,197n. 3,198-199n. 12,
Patterson, Lyman Ray, 195n. 5,197n. 3, 200-201nn. 2 4 , 2 5
201-202n.26 Rap music, 65,131-148; history of,
Peirce, Charles Sanders, 196n. 23 132-140. See also African American
Pentagon Papers, 188 traditions; D, Chuck; Digital
Pera, Pia, 188-189,230n. 9 sampling; Public Enemy;
Pharmaceutical development, 18-19 2 Live Crew
Piracy, 45; as distinct from plagiarism, Read-only memory (ROM), 170
67-69 Reagan, Ronald, 132
Plagiarism, 33-34; as distinct from copy- Redding, Otis, 134,221n. 29
right infringement or piracy, 67-69; mis- Reed-Else vier, 166-167
use of term, 115-117; scholarship on, Reichman, J. H., 191n. 4,227n. 15
205n. 6; Mark Twain on, 62-69 Rice, Grantland, 192n. 6,198-199n. 12
Plato, 69-70 Richards, Keith, 139
Poe, Edgar Allan, 100 Rock, Kid, 119
Porter, Cole, 106 Rodgers v. Koons, 225-226nn. 68-75. See
Porter, Edwin S., 91 also Parody
Posner, Richard, 199n. 13,227-228n. 18. Rolling Stones, the, 118-120
See also Fair use; "Law and Economics"; Rollins, Sonny, 149
Parody Roman legal code, 41
Postman, Neil, 177,229n. 35 Romberg, Sigmund, 106
"Postmodern condition," the, 14. See also Romeo and Juliet, 107
Digitization, process of; Rap music Rose, Mark, 193n. 9,197-198n. 3,
Presley, Elvis, 67,119 200-202nn. 2 5 , 2 7 , 2 8
Preston, Billy, 126-129 Rose, Tricia, 119, 218n. 5
Price, Lloyd, 223n. 45 Rosen, Jay, 193n. 7
Prince, 223n. 48 Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.,
"Property talk," 11-15,22, 34; early exam- 217n. 49
ple of, 43; and Mark Twain, 36, 57 Rumble in the Bronx (film), 115
Property, theories of, 4 - 5 Run DMC, 138,144, 224n. 52
Protas, Ron, 185 Ruth, George Herman "Babe," 165
Public domain, 2 1 , 4 0 , 5 9 , 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 4 ,
230n. 8; and Martha Graham's use of, Sampling. See Digital sampling
186 Samuelson, Pamela, 191n. 4, 227nn. 6,13
Public Enemy, 225n. 67. See also D, Chuck; Sandoval v. New Line Cinema, 196-197n. 26,
Digital sampling 217n. 51
Public performance of copyrighted works, Sanjek, David, 139,193n. 9,195n. 5,218n.
20-21 8,220n. 22
Public sphere, 6 - 8 , 1 3 , 1 9 1 - 1 9 6 n n . 5 , 6 . See Sanjek, Russell, 220n. 22
also Habermas, Jurgen Santayana, George, 105
Publishers' Copyright League, 54 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 10
Publisher's Weekly, 54 Saturday Night Live, 147
Putnam, George, 54 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 196n. 23
Scorcese, Martin, 189
Queen, 138 Scott, Sir Walter, 45, 50, 60
Scribner's, 48
Raitt, Bonnie, 119 Seaside Library, 53
Rajagopalachari, C , 193-194n. 11 "Seasons, The," 42
 240 INDEX

Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), Tate, Greg, 138

229n. 41 Tauchnitz, Baron von, 73
Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of Taylor, Houndog, 139
1984,167 Taylor, S. E. V , 102-105
Semiconductor protection, 18,167 Tebbel, lohn, 197-198n. 3
Sesame Street, 32 Tennyson, Alfred Lord, 84
Seven (film), 115,196-197n. 26, 217n. 51 Texas, University of, 46
Shatner, William, 187 Thalberg, Irving, 107. See also Marx
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., Brothers
107-112,215-216nn. 43-45. See also "Thick" and "thin" copyright protection,
Derivative works; Idea/expression 15-16
dichotomy Thompson, Robert Farris, 219n. 114
Sheriff, John, 196n. 23 Toasting, 134-135. See also African Ameri-
Shrinkwrap licenses, 178 can traditions
"Signifying Monkey," 132, 220n. 24 Tolstoy, Leo, 84,97
Simon, Paul, 221n. 31 Tonson v. Collins, 42-43
Slate.com, 182-183, 229n. 43 "Total concept and feel," or "total look
Smith, Adam, 71,199n. 13, 207n. 73 and feel," 112-115,118, 215n. 42; of soft-
Solberg, Thorvald, 99-100 ware, 168-174
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Trade secret law, 18-20
Act of 1998,25, 79-80 Trademark law, 18-20
Sony Corporation, 81,176. See also Video Treaties, international copyright, 25, 27,
cassette recorders (VCR) 160-162; between United States and
Sopranos, The, 157 United Kingdom in 1891, 36. See also
Sound recordings, protection of, 24 World Intellectual Property Organiza-
Source code, 154-156 tion (WIPO)
Souter, David, 147, 225-226nn. 68-75. See Truman Show (film), 115
also Parody Trumbo, Dalton, 110
South Africa, 167 Turtles, the, 141
Southey, Robert, 47,51 Twain, Mark (Samuel L. Clemens), 5-8,
Spector, Phil, 126-128 12, 82, 98, 99; and Adventures of Huckle-
Spielberg, Stephen, 111-112 berry Finn, 5 9 - 6 1 , 6 6 - 6 7 , 6 9 ; and The Ad-
Stallman, Richard, 154-156, 227nn. 8-11 ventures of Tom Sawyer, 59; on attempted
Staples Singers, 139 trademark of his name, 56; and authors'
Star Wars, 188-189 movement, 48-55; on Canadian pirates,
Stationers' Company, 2 8 , 3 7 - 3 9 , 1 9 8 - 1 9 9 n . 56; and A Connecticut Yankee in King
12. See also Copyright law, United Arthur's Court, 80; and "The Death
Kingdom Disk," 82-86,209-210nn. 4, 6-9; on
Statute of Anne, 4 0 ^ 3 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 8 - 1 9 9 n . 12 Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Sci-
Steely Dan, 129 ence, 56, 62-65; and "The Great Repub-
Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 2 1 ; and lic's Peanut Stand," 69-80; and the
The Minister's Wooing, 211-212n. 22 House of Lords, 78; and " H o w to Tell a
Stowe v. Thomas, 4 8 - 5 0 , 1 0 9 , 2 0 2 n . 30. See Story," 66; on the idea/expression di-
also idea/expression dichotomy chotomy, 78-79; and The Innocents
Sugarhill Gang, 132 Abroad, 64; and Helen Keller, 63-65; on
Synthesizer, electronic, 149-151 mining as analogous to writing, 77-78;
on plagiarism and originality, 63-69, 80;
Taft, William Howard, 99 and The Prince and the Pauper, 196n. 26,
Talk, 187; 225-226nn. 68-75,230n. 5. See 217n. 51; and Roughing It, 58-59, 77-78;
also Parody and Sketches, New and Old, 66; and "A

True Story, Repeated Word for Word as
I Heard it," 65-66, 204-205n. 63; and
U.S. Congress, 35-37, 54-55, 61-62; on
whiskey, 56; and white suit, 35,197n. 2
Twelfth Night, 106-107
12 Monkeys (film), 115-116, 217n. 51. See
also Fair use
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al v.
MCA, Inc., et al, 217n. 50. See also "Total
concept and feel," or "total look and
feel"; Star Wars
2600: The Hacker Quarterly, 176-177
2 Live Crew, 3; and Roy Orbison, 3,
145-148; and parody as fair use,
145-148
Ulysses, 215n. 40. See also Hand, Learned
Uncle Tom's Cabin, 48-50,202-203n. 31. See
also Stowe v. Thomas
Unions, labor, 54-55
United Kingdom. See Copyright law,
United Kingdom
United States v. One Book Called "Ulysses,"
215n. 40. See also Hand, Learned
United States v. Taxe, 224n. 55
Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Shawn C.
Reimerdes et ah, 229n. 34. See also Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1988; Dig-
ital Video Discs (DVDs)
Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony
Corporation of America, et ah, 209n. 2
UNIX operating system, 155
Us3,151
U2, 225-226nn. 68-75. See also Parody
Valens, Ritchie, 130
Video cassette recorders (VCRs), 3 , 8 1 . See
also Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA); Sony Corporation
Vitagraph, 88
Vitascope, 87-88
Volman, Mark, 141
Volokh, Eugene, 216n. 47
Vyasa, Bhagavan, 193-194n. 11
Wall Street Journal, 188
Wallace, Lew, 93-96, 211n. 20
INDEX 241
Walt Disney Corporation, 6,10,187. See
also Eisner, Michael
Warner Brothers, 1-3; and AOL Time-
Warner, 2; and Marx Brothers, 1-3
Warner Brothers Records, 141
Warner, Michael, 6,192n. 6
Washington, George, 22
Washington Post, 188
Waters, Muddy (McKinley Morganfield),
120-126,128,218-219nn. 7-11
Webster, Noah, 43-17, 55,200n. 21
Welles, Orson, 216n. 46
Wheaton v. Peters, 46-47,201-202n. 26. See
also Common law
Whiskey, 56
"White Paper" on intellectual property,
159, 227n. 13
White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo
Co., 211-212n. 22. See also Holmes,
Oliver Wendell Jr.
Whitman, Walt, 54, 58
Whittier, John Greenleaf, 54
Wilhelm, Kaiser, 89
Williamson, Sonny Boy, 120
Winship, Michael, 203n. 36
Wired, 154
Wizard of Oz, The, 113
Wolf, Howlin', 130
Woodmansee, Martha, 191n. 4
Woods v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
196-197n. 26, 217n. 51
Wordsworth, William, 71
Works made for hire, 9 9 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 , 1 7 5 ; and
Copyright Act of 1909, 214n. 33. See also
Corporate copyrights
World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), 1 2 , 2 5 , 1 5 9 ; and Berne Conven-
tion, 160-161; treaties, 161-162
Wright, Robert, 182-183
Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research
Center (PARC), 171-172,228n. 28
Yankovich, Weird Al, 147
Yen, Alfred, 215n. 42
Zaentz, Saul, 130,219-220nn. 20-21
About the Author

SIVA V A I D H Y A N A T H A N h a s w r i t t e n for the Nation, the Chronicle of

Higher Education, the Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-States-
man, a n d the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. H i s w o r k has b e e n profiled in the
New York Times a n d o n National P u b l i c R a d i o . V a i d h y a n a t h a n is a n as-
sistant professor of I n f o r m a t i o n Studies at the University of Wisconsin
at M a d i s o n .

243