Reilly 1 Michael Reilly Eng 102 Prof.

Sinski August 27, 2011

I Search for Copyright What is creativity? Where does it come from? There is a saying that few, if any, original ideas exist, yet new content is being produced more now than in any time in history. If new ideas arent original, then that must mean that theyre from old ideas, just mixed around and changed. In this manner, humans have done creativity and invention for thousands of years. My assignment, I assure you, will be nothing special. None of the ideas are truly original, nor will my expression of those ideas be. However, one can be distinctive without being original. It is to that destination that I will chart. Initially, I was surprised at the assignment. Surprised and a bit upset. I like to think that I dont have an artistic bone in my body. Im no good at visual presentation, and I have no doubt that my final movie will be a few metaphorical meters short of whelming. However, Im resolved if I cant baffle you with bullshit, I will dazzle you with brilliance. At least, I will make my best effort to that end; no telling how far Ill manage to take it. When the assignment was announced, I knew immediately what I wanted to do my project on. Im not what you would call a disinterested observer in this situation. I dont really think its possible to be disinterested in this fight, but I would rate myself as far from average, even taking that into account. My purpose and goal is to become a copyright lawyer and work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and help fix our broken system: one case at a time, one law at a time, one lawmaker at a time. This path has been my dream for quite a while. And unlike my dream to become an astronaut, this dream has persisted and pestered me through my adult life thus far.

Reilly 2 Should I fail at that purpose, my current skill set lends itself to Computer Engineering and the Computer Sciences, which is currently the front lines of the patent war. Even if I stay with the job I already hold and dont advance anymore, I still am at the capricious mercy of large, patent-holding corporations. I work in the Data Recovery field, and our tools are created through the process of reverse engineering. If Seagate (who runs a competing data recovery organization) decides to wage a patent war against data recovery professionals, I would likely be out of a job. Even my hobbies run afoul of copyright law. I publish videos of Tool Assisted Speedruns for the site tasvideos.org. I distribute copyrighted music, images and sound effects to thousands of people. My current Youtube channel is filled with material that falls in violation of copyrights. Yet, according to Google, I am actually in very good standing with regard to copyright, and as a result I have the ability to upload multi-hour movies. However, this status remains in constant danger, because anyone who is sufficiently angry at my political stances can issue a DMCA take down request against a movie in my channel. The onus would then be upon me to prove that the DMCA take down request is spurious and that the user in question does not own the copyright to my videos. Using the DMCA as a tool of censorship is certainly not a new idea; for example, it's commonly used against many atheist video makers on Youtube. For instance, user Evid3nc3 goes as far to even explicitly spell out the copyright of everything in his movies to avoid this fate, using only items licensed under a copyleft license (such as Creative Commons). However, would I really be happy as an activist lawman fighting the good fight for the common people and trying to make the world a better place, or would I find it boring or frustrating? Im doing this research paper now, rather than some other time down the road, because I want to discover that on my own. Make sure chasing this idea is actually something that I find interesting enough to want to do for the rest of my life. Activism seldom pays well, even if youre a lawyer. And of course, its not too late for me to become an astronaut.

Reilly 3 As a result of having such a vested interest in this topic, Ive already done a lot of research on this topic and I already have a number of deeply held opinions on this topic, which will be either challenged or confirmed by my research into this topic. I must not fall victim to confirmation bias, which is always a danger to rational examination of any belief. My current view is that Copyright and Patent laws in this country are woefully out of line with our ideals and fall well outside of economic optimum. Strict intellectual property protections curtail innovation. However, overly lax Patent and Copyright law removes some incentive to innovate. Our statutes should strike the best balance between the two extremes. However, since the founding of this nation, there has never been a law to shorten the duration of copyrights or patents (of which I am aware.) I'm not sure if there's even been a bill which has been seriously considered. Only the large corporations and their lawyers win in this environment of extreme copyright, because they can simply out-litigate their competition, rather than try to out-compete them. This activity doesnt produce anything of value. It doesnt lead to new innovations or inventions. It doesnt advance technology in any way. Indeed, it directly harms the people who are trying to. On the other hand, the same people who benefit from overly aggressive patents and copyrights can violate them with relative impunity, because they have the legal high ground. The law only applies to those who do not have the means to drag out a battle in court. Or at least, that is what I believe to be the case. Not all opinions are created equal. Some are more equal than others. And while I currently, very passionately, hold an opinion on this topic, I recognize that I do not hold an informed opinion on this topic. In order to rectify this, I need to learn about the specifics of copyright law and patent law, as well as relevant case law. The second part is especially important, as any law untried in courts is potentially vulnerable to being overturned on Constitutional grounds, or being interpreted far differently than expected or intended.

Reilly 4 There are many like me on the Internet who believe as I believe. Im sure many people have heard of the Pirate Parties springing up over Europe, and even in the United States to a lesser extent. If you havent, theyre single issue parties primarily concerned with the topic of overzealous copyright and patent protections. But... how accurate are they, factually, on the current copyright law? It seems that for every informed person 1000 uninformed people exist, and, statistically, I likely fall into the second category, as I recognize that I have not yet thoroughly taken the time to research this topic in any depth. Ive only had a cursory flirtation with it on days when someone who agrees with me has posted an article, usually biased, on the subject. Ive read them, and said, Thats just what I expected from the CRIA. I havent examined them any further. Were all guilty of this behavior. There simply isnt enough time in the day to research everything we come across; its a simple matter of practicality. Once I know how things currently are, I must research how things ought to be. If Im to be an effective advocate of this path, I certainly would need to know where I want to go. Its pointless to say, We need no patent or copyright law in this country at all. I will be dismissed and branded as a radical. Even if I come up with a practical and objectively optimal scenario for copyright and patent law (which almost never exists for this type of problem), unless I can explain it effectively I will still be labeled as dangerous radical, who shouldnt be listened to. Although I am nearly 27 years of age, I havent really felt like an adult until very recently. However, I am an adult now, and that means how this country is run is partially my decision. I actually vote, this means (at least in theory) that my lawmakers will listen to me. But they will not listen to me unless I have enough of a command on the issue to present it in a coherent fashion. I have to know it well enough to sell it. So what do I need to know? First, I need to figure out how copyright and patent law practically affects individuals and businesses in this country. Does it affect them in ways that I assume? How is reality different from my currently held assumptions? What innovations has patent law caused? What innovations has it prevented? Is the

Reilly 5 law being abused in any way? Is this abuse substantively good or ill for those affected? Who are the winners, and who are the losers? Next, with copyright law as it currently stands, do we actually need to change it, or would the status quo be an acceptable solution? If the status quo is not an acceptable solution, what are some other possible solutions? Of the possible solutions, what are the pros and the cons? Should copyright be a moral right granted to copyright holders? Or is it purely utilitarian? What affect has copyright extension had on arts and literature in this country? What are the practical issues that everyone runs into every day? I hope to answer all of these questions and more for myself as I move forward with this project. I earnestly hope that I am not biting off more than I can chew with this project. It seems so broad right now. So a big challenge for me will be to trim it down to something more manageable. Or maybe I shouldnt trim it down and let it run on and on and on. We will find out together, wont we? All in all, I think that copyright and patent law is probably a good fit for my first project. It will give me a very good grounding in an important topic and it will allow me to form my own opinions, rather than mindlessly parroting the opinions that others have fed to me. It will go a long way in making me the sort of person I want to be. Or it will make me want research an exciting career in NASA. (With apologizes to the movie Pi.) 12:45: Restate my assumptions: One, copyright is a privilege. Two, that privilege is of monopoly granted by the government. Three, monopolies thwart competition and lead to lower quality and higher prices for everyone. Therefore, reducing a monopoly will lead to a better economy. Evidence: The elimination of Ma Bell; the rise of the American Publishing Industry; reverse engineering the IBM BIOS; the DeBeers diamond cartel. So, what about the copyright? The only significant legislation required by the Constitution. Millions of hands at work, billions of minds. An infinite collection of monopolies, screaming with life. An organism. A natural organism. My hypothesis: There is a way to unleash this power... all of it... hiding behind the litigation. But how do I prove it?

Reilly 6 9:13: Personal Note: It's fair to say I'm biting off more than I can chew, but Im researching, and thats how it goes. Two Wednesdays ago, August 31st, we were shown how to do research through EBSCO for articles, and also Minerva, the librarys card catalog, which I remember finding dreadfully appropriate, being both god of wisdom and learning, as well as battles, as there is little more taxing that sifting through a mountain of words to find the ones you wish to quote. To date Ive read a little under a thousand pages on the subject of copyright, and I still havent yet exhausted the 7 sources required. I began by performing an EBSCO search for just copyright. I figured I would be inundated by results and I would have to narrow it down a bit, but you really cant over think things like this. I, of course, found numerous articles (which I have yet to read) on the subject. I filed them away for later use. Then, I figured I would try Minerva and see if I could get some books on the subject. 9:40: Personal Note: One night my mom told me not to read books in the dark because it would ruin my eyes. So every night I do, and I havent stopped since. I love books. Deal with it, mom. I recalled wanting an excuse to read a book I had heard about on a blog. Its a book by William Patry, the senior copyright counsel of Google, but, of course, I couldnt remember his name or the name of the book. I googled for the phrase, copyright senior counsel google, and I found his name as a wikipedia article on the second link. Which very helpfully gave me the exact information that I needed. The book was called Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. Minerva had it! It was in the Law Library. So after the presentation was done on Wednesday I managed to find the Law Library, and check out the book. As well as a number of other books on the subject that were sitting near Mr. Patrys book. With my bounty in a full backpack, I absconded to my next class. September 1st, 12:30AM. I begin reading. Im impressed by the way that Mr. Patry deconstructs some of the framing around the copyright debate. But I feel that perhaps I agree with him too much, and his work is not forcing me to think about the issues.

Reilly 7 Following some advice I heard once somewhere, I go take a bath, to get some perspective. My cat, of course, follows along. I read in the bathtub, while my cat paws at the water. She, of course, falls into the tub and then jumps out and sprays water everywhere in her panic. I managed to save the book, but it scared me into not reading a library book in the tub again. I didnt have much time on Thursday or Friday to do much reading. However, Saturday I took a flight down to my old hometown to visit my old roommates, I took along my books to read during the flight. This didnt work out terribly well. I spoke with my old roommates about the subject and that wound up working out significantly better. Maya told me about a documentary she had watched on the subject called Good Copy, Bad Copy. I went to the website for Good Copy, Bad Copy and discovered that they had released the video over the internet for free. And provided a torrent on The Pirate Bay. At least, it was on The Pirate Bay. Now the link to the torrent 404s. So I had to find another way to download the file. The first place I checked was Google. I found the link to its website and where it was hosted as a streaming file on blip.tv and Google video. I knew from past experiences that I could download the file off of Google Video if I needed to. But I wanted the original torrent, because of quality reasons. Because the file was licensed under Creative Commons, I figured that I might be able to use clips from the video in my final presentation, and I wanted these to be as clean of noise as possible. So I kept searching. I then found another copy of the torrent on The Pirate Bay. I didnt know if this was the original, so I kept looking to confirm the file type and size. On the second page of Google results, I found a copy of the movie on archive.org. I was able to compare the listed file size to the file on The Pirate Bay, and I figured that I had my match based on the codec and container in use by both copies vs the original date of publication. I remotely logged into my computer and started the download and watched the video when I got home. It showed me a number of things that I found to be very surprising regarding the international film industry and copyright in general. Most definitely a keeper.

Reilly 8 When I got done with Mr. Patrys book, I moved on to another book. Reading through this book was far more of a slog, because I frequently found myself yelling in my empty room at an inanimate object. I managed to finish the book before the happy people in the white suits took me away. I decided against using it as a source, because it didnt support my arguments, and it was mentioned in class that only sources that supported my argument should be used. Otherwise, it would look sloppy. Sometimes, when searching, it's better to drop a few words to find what you're looking for. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a notorious piece of legislation with regards to copyright. Searching Google for books about the relationship of piracy to the DMCA wasn't pointing me to anything interesting. However, when I dropped Copyright Act out of my search the second link came up with my next major source. This book was Pirates of the Digital Millennium, which was an interesting read. I couldnt tell which side the authors supported, until it was revealed to me at the end of the book. I liked the little stories and asides that had a surprising twist, and Im trying to think of a way to incorporate that sort of presentation in my movie. I also learned quite a bit about the history of copyright from the book. I am not done with reading the rest of the books, though Ive had a start on most of them. I still need to read through the articles I downloaded, but Im confident that I will be more than prepared for my final part of the research paper. 12:50 press return... What you just saw and heard was a blatant rip-off of the movie Pi. My usage isnt illegal though, because my paper falls under one of the fair use exemptions: scholarship. But while technically not illegal, Im still skirting dangerous territory. If needed, the burden of proof would be on me in a court of law. But why should this territory be dangerous? We are in dire need of weakening copyright in this country. Fair use is a very shaky defense. Legal precedent rapidly changes, and seems unintuitive at times. Fair use, as it appears in the United States Code, carries exemptions for purposes such as criticism,

Reilly 9 comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research (17 USC 92 107). However, as a for instance, in the case Encyclopedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks it was ruled that School districts cannot videotape entire educational programs shown on TV for reuse in the classroom (Gantz et al 47), even though that seems to clearly fall under the category of teaching for fair use. Im not for abolishing the system of copyright entirely in this country. Its one of the few enumerated powers in the Constitution, To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries alongside other very important powers such as: the ability of the government to borrow money, build and maintain an Army and Navy, declare War and others (Art I, Sec 8). Moreover, I do believe that people deserve the ability to profit from their work. However, there must be moderation. We all benefit from works in the public domain. At the end of the day, I am utilitarian to a fault. As a society we need to look at copyright as ruled by a Manhattan Federal Court in the case of Sarl Louis Feraud Intl v. Viewfinder, Inc. Copyright and trademark are not matters of strong moral principle. Intellectual property regimes are economic legislation based on policy decisions that assign rights based on assessments of what legal rules will produce the greatest economic good for society as a whole. (Patry xv) There is no moral or natural right that a writer has to his work. Copyright, despite carrying right in its name, is actually a privilege of monopoly granted by the government to a writer and just like there is no inherent benefit from steeper taxes, there is no inherent benefit from granting copyright owners more extensive monopoly rights (Patry 37). A disturbing trend for me, from the very beginning was the reframing of the copyright debate as one of intellectual property. By peddling the phrase to the public, it tries to turn an idea into a object, or more specifically, into something that can be stolen. Of course, the concept of stealing an idea doesnt

Reilly 10 make much sense. However, because of how much weve been drilled, it makes perfect sense to us that to download an album is stealing it. Even though we logically know that no actual theft has taken place: If I copy a manuscript and publish it, I am liable to civil action. If I steal a book, to a criminal one; the one is simply taking ideas, the other a chattel. But what property can a man have in ideas? Whilst he keeps them to himself they are his own, when he publishes them that are his no longer. If I take water from the ocean it is mine, if I pour it back it is mine no longer. (Gantz et al 43). All of us benefit from works in the public domain. Disney made much of their early success off of the backs of the Brothers Grimm. Romeo and Juliet, the 1996 movie, grossed over $46 million for 20th Century Fox. (IMDb Inc.). I have at my feet 11 hours of Charlie Chaplin that I purchased for $7 some years ago. Betty Boop passed into public domain several years ago, and her likeness can be found on merchandise all over as a result. Culture from the 20s and 30s is making a comeback simply because theyve finally been liberated into the public domain. Speaking of culture, our culture is shaped by the works of our society. Right now, the most popular are solely in the hands of only a few corporations (Good Copy Bad Copy). Famous works shape how we speak and think. Take Shakespeare. Anyone who went through 12th grade English has probably learned of the absolutely massive effect that this one author has had on the English Language. But for those unfamiliar, I wont lead you on a wild goose chase to find something as clear as the nose on your face. And I wont play fast and loose with the facts. Most of the clever turns of phrase, even ones that still sound fresh, are Shakespeares work. Even being green with envy is a reference to Shakespeares quote Jealousy is the green-eyed monster. Were all a product of our culture. We naturally conform to societal norms. The people in North Korea are the same as the people in South Korea, yet their cultures are drastically different. Where we grow up has a drastic impact on what we believe and think. As observed by Gwynne Dyer in his little known documentary on War, These young men are in the Soviet Army, and proud of it. Theyre

Reilly 11 mounting guard on Lenins tomb. Yet if their grandparents had emigrated to America they might be in the US army now. And theyd be equally proud of that (War Part Two). The culture between the two nations seems almost diametrically opposed though. It sometimes seems difficult to believe that a diehard communist would become a die-hard capitalist had they just grew up in a different area, but this must be the case. Otherwise, it stands to reason there would be far more communists in America. Why is corporate ownership of culture a bad thing though? For this, I have no hard facts, only a few points of observation. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, and they have a legal obligation to do so in whatever ways that they can. It is legal for the holders of culture to decide what does and does not become culture in America. If they have that sort of power, it would make sense to believe that they would shape the opinions of people to serve their ends. This is a dangerous power to wield, and one even more dangerous to ignore. In the words of Goethe, None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. If the way we think and our opinions on issues can be even partially controlled by media companies then its very difficult to decide if what we believe to be right is actually the best solution for the public, or is it the conclusion that serves the interest those who mold our views. Its commonly said that there is nothing more daunting to a writer than a blank page. As you stare into the sea of white, your mind empties. Once words start to form on the page, though, the act of writing becomes much easier. Words begin to fly out of your head much faster than you can jot down and your hands start playing catch-up. New ideas are difficult to come by. They are also the currency by which pages get filled, and music gets invented, and videos get produced. If you dont have a new idea or a new way of telling an old idea, then nothing gets done. But what is a new idea, but an old idea in different clothing. Just because a new idea came from an old idea, doesnt automatically make it worse, of course. For instance, no one would argue that The Matrix isnt an original movie. Even though the premise of living in a virtual world and

Reilly 12 the concept of a red pill taking you out was very clearly ripped off from Total Recall, nearly everyone agrees that The Matrix was a far superior film to Total Recall. While this happened completely within the context of our current copyright platform, there are a number of other instances where things did not turn out so well. Generally, this happens when the two parties publishing have wildly different amounts of resources. Sony (the publisher of Total Recall) did not sue Warner Bros. (the publisher of The Matrix) because Sony knew that WB could defend themselves. However, when the defendant is relatively weak, some large copyright holders dont have many qualms about throwing their weight around. Indeed, we see abuses like Warner Bros threatening to sue a 15-year-old who ran Harry Potter fan website (McCarthy). Or Sony suing a hacker by the name Geohot (under the DCMA), who managed to bypass the security features on a PS3 that disallowed you to run programs that Sony didnt want you running (Leyden). So now we know the dangers that overly strong copyright represents. However, there are two sides to this battle. I approached this paper wanting to give the other side a fair shake. But as youll no doubt see, I remain unconvinced by their arguments. A commonly cited reason for strong copyright is that it reduces monetary incentives for content producers to produce work. The theory goes that if authors, artists and musicians cannot be paid for their work then they will not produce it, or at least, some will not, and therefore its important to have strong copyright to make sure that they keep doing what they do best. However, coming back to a point I made much earlier. There isnt an automatic benefit for having strong copyright. It needs to be shown that the good of copyright outweighs the bad. Its good that authors can make a living. Although, they could make a living for themselves before the age of strong copyright. In the 1800s, a book was written and then sold to a publisher for a one time fee. Copyright law has, over its life, given ever more rights to the [publisher] of the work without much demonstrable evidence that the artist has gained anywhere near as much, eather creatively or financially (Gantz et al 29). An artist generally does not publish his own work. A publisher does. And it is the publisher who

Reilly 13 makes the majority of the money. When the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act passed into law in 1998, did the musicians of the world receive a pay raise? Of course not. These laws benefit publishers, not producers. Not to mention that artists themselves benefit from work being in the public domain. It makes the act of creation much easier. For instance: The best example of the ways that copyright law undermines everybodys interests is the Grey Album which was produced by DJ Danger Mouse. Danger Mouse was inspired by Jay-Zs Black Album and The Beatles White Album. He took the vocal track from Jay-Z and samples of the musical bed from the White Album and mixed them together in a brilliant way. He released some discs to a few friends who immediately posted the songs on the internet. Within weeks, thousands of people had copies of it. (Good Copy Bad Copy) Its worth noting that DJ Danger Mouse eventually went on to become the man behind Gorillazs album Demon Days as a result of his work. But this work on the Grey Album only took a few weeks and it was a phenomenal breakaway hit and an instant classic, and also completely, completely illegal. Had it been sold in stores, it would have probably been the biggest hit of the year had it actually been sold (Good Copy Bad Copy). Its an awesome listen and I encourage you to take some time and download it... if you dare. Of course, had The Beatles been in the public domain, this sort of thing would have been allowed. We know that Jay-Z was encouraging remixing of his songs, because he released an a-Capella version of his album. So as a result, a wonderful and masterfully produced album is completely illegal, (and because Im currently playing it in the background, so is this video.) Another common argument for tough copyright law is that producers of content have a moral right to their work. The act of creating a work is the intellectual equivalent of childbirth and should be treated as such. Or alternatively, the act of synthesizing a work is like farming, so the artist should have use of what is reaped.

Reilly 14 This argument is another blatant attempt to frame the argument into terms that carry and emotional weight, much like intellectual property and piracy as stealing. There are two problems with this approach. No one is an island and copyright in common law countries is an economic right in commodities, not a moral right, and is granted to facilitate trade in copyrighted works, not to ensure an ongoing parent-child relationship. (Patry 71). The second part is clear, and I wont touch on that. But the first part means simply that we all work off of the shoulders of giants, so to speak. Each of us build off of those who have come before. The innumerable works which feature tall elves who are graceful and ageless all owe that idea to Tolkien. This is why Santas Elves are short and round like dwarves or gnomes. The concept of the robot is owed to mostly to Karel apek, who dreamed up a mechanical worker who never tired. However, breaking the trope that all robots would eventually turn on their masters is owed to Isaac Asimov. No idea is unique, as merely browsing through the TV Tropes website will show you. Picasso once said Good artists borrow, great artists steal. So, knowing all of this, how would we go about fixing this problem. I would propose ending the concept of automatic copyright and reducing the term to 28 years for all works. The reason why I chose this value, is that things generally become famous again after the kids who were exposed to them grow up. Thats why everything from the 80s is coming back. In the 1990s, the culture of the 1970s made a resurgence. And although I was too young to directly witness it, Im sure that the 1960s were popular in the 1980s as well. Ending automatic copyright is important because it frees up lots of works for use that the author of the work wasnt planning on exploiting in any monetary fashion, so it lessens the legal minefield of accidentally using someones work, who is particularly litigious. Creating a copyright registry wouldnt be an undue burden on the US Government, and registering a work for copyright should be very cheap or free of charge. We already operate a patent office. And although patents are expensive, registering a copyright is a far simpler task and it should be a burden that the US Government can easily shoulder with

Reilly 15 all of economic growth spurred by lax copyright. Besides, we already know this plan works, because this is how copyright has historically operated. Nigerias film industry is a good example of whats possible with lax copyright. Nigeria makes more feature films than Bollywood and Hollywood combined. And they do so in a far more impoverished country. (Good Copy Bad Copy) Obviously, I doubt I will ever see my ideas enacted. Publishers are already too powerful and have the ear of Congress. However, this seems to be the right way. Copyright is an important issue, one too important just to let coast. Possibly the most important issue that doesnt get enough discussion in society. Its important that we closely examine and reduce the terms of copyright in the US.

Reilly 16

Bibliography McCarthy, Kieren. "Warner Brothers Bullying Ruins Field Family Xmas The Register." The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World. The Register, 21 Dec. 2000. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/21/warner_brothers_bullying_ruins_field/>. Leyden, John. "Sony Sues PlayStation 3 'hackers' The Register." The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World. The Register, 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/12/sony_sues_playstation_hackers/>. IMDb Inc. "IMDb - Romeo Juliet (1996)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). IMDb. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/>. Good Copy Bad Copy. Prod. Rosforth. Perf. Andreas Johnsen, Ralf Christensen, and Henrik Moltke. 2007. The Pirate Bay. War Part Two: Anybody's Son Will Do. Dir. Gwynne Dyer. Perf. Gwynne Dyer. National Film Board of Canada, 1983. Youtube. Gantz, John, and Jack B. Rochester. Pirates of the Digital Millennium: How the Intellectual Property Wars Damage Our Personal Freedoms, Our Jobs, and the World Economy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Financial Times, 2005. Print. 17 USC. Sec. 92. 2011. Print.