In the fall of 2003, students of Swarthmore College became participants in a political fight. They published information about the election process when 15,000 e-mail messages disappeared from one of the main voting machines (Diebold Election System) in the United States. Digital Millennium Copyright (D.M.C.A.), the law about intellectual property added them troubles. This law protects Internet and phone service providers from having to share their information. If any problem appears, they delete this information. After warning the students, Diebold removed the material. Incredible as it may seem, the attempts of the students changed the company’s decision about opening the case. The information was restored.
The same problems touched many sides of U.S. culture: art, science, and politics. Companies began suing the Girl Scouts, consumers, and other companies for any reason they could find. The growing quantity of information on the Internet pushed creating industries into reinforcing the laws by lengthening copyright terms, for example. Understanding as fact the temporary nature of those actions, lawyers, scholars, and other activist groups argued that legislation was manipulated by the number of involved companies. The activists asserted that hiding the information from the public is more than an unfair and silly action because everybody borrows everything from the world where it already exists. It is necessary for a society to use an intellectual property because both of them are interdependent. The members of “Copy Left” warn that if we don’t do anything with the copyright laws, we’ll lose in the labyrinth of legal and illegal privacy. We already do, inside the Internet.
Thomas Jefferson helped increase the time before having to divulge the innovations and works of art before they are made public. Again, it only works for a short period of time because copyright protections are not forever. But the fact is: ending the terms of copyrights allows information to enter public domain.
Only two basic laws have helped the copyright system to survive. In 1909, by changing the definition of what a copyright is, the Copyright Act started to regulate the process not only publishing but copying somebody else’s work. In 1976, copyrights tightened to fit European standards. When Internet came into our life, everybody saw a problem: even the copying of the information onto the Internet breaks the law. Lessig, who was one of the members of Copy Left hoped to bring Jefferson’s rules back because nobody knew what information they could post without being sued.
The year before this article was published, Lessig came out against lengthening the terms of copyrights. He asserted that this act is an infringement of the Constitution, and copyrights should exist only temporarily. Copy Left failed that case. Earlier, Lessig had made one other attempt: he found Creative Common, a company that worked on solving an individual’s copyright problems. The company created a special program that helped manage the access to the works legally. Creative Common changed the quantity of available works and made the access to them chipper and easier: texts, songs, and photographs could be used with the permission of their authors. Now, Creative Common has representatives in 10 countries.
The professor of Yale, Yochai Benkler, asserts that everybody want to participate in the development of the culture. People like to be engaged in the main process because they not just part of the technology. Author met Benkler in New York. The professor, in his 20’s, lived in a kibbutz. The kibbutz had tried to create a separate society because the current one was too destructive, but it didn’t work. Isolating the rest of society put the kibbutz at a very low level of development. Benkler hadn’t given up. Later, he believed that if people could pay for telephone service more than for records, then the time would come and things could change. The importance of sharing creations with each other would grow. He also believed that there would a new model of successful cooperation between corporations and consumers, such as Google. Benkler asserted that recording companies would have great success in the future because they produce a very important product for the whole culture.
Opponents of the Copy Left came up with another model of the industrial market: everything there has to have an owner. Jane Ginsburg, a professor at Columbia Law School, was afraid that Copy Left’s model affects the authors. Corporations and individuals find a way to benefit from other’s creations every time, and here copyright law has to protect the author – not just give his works out to the public. Ginsburg cited iTunes as an example of consumer’s freedom.
Paul Goldshtein, a professor at Stanford Law School, agreed with Ginsburg. He illuminated in his book at the correct relationship between creation and consumer: everybody has to pay for the opportunity to use another’s work. It will help the producers decide what content they have to put on the market.
William Fisher, director of the Berkman Center, created a completely new model of regulating payments for artist’s works. The system shows when money goes to the author. The main department of this system has to manage all payments and pay back from the taxes to the author every time his work was used. For now, this proposal is the best solution of the copyright problem. Fisher said that entertainment industries paid attention to his payment model with high interest. He also believed that countries, excluding a small number of them, have the possibility of working with his system. U.S. will have this chance, too, but only when other opportunities will not work.
James Boyle, one more member of Copy Left, compared information with the environment where we have common lands and forests – the same as with intellectual property: the public domain that consists of this property needs to be protected from destruction.
I agree with the idea of creating a new system that will help to fix the chaotic situation in the media world. But I’m sure some people will turn it into a way of solving their own problems. Laws are created with purpose to break them. We have the opportunity to understand the necessity of sharing our ideas, or we will be closer to a new war that will bring us more suffering than we can imagine. Everybody wants to be treated fairly, and fairness of every person in this world depends on her own heart.


