to be revisited in the future. this event was part of the new orleans literary festival held annually in the city. it's about one hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning everyone. i have some powerpoint slides so hopefully we will have something visual to look at. if you don't give people some sort of reprieve, the audience starts hurting themselves. [laughter] i am a practitioner so i'm not a scholar, i am not a law professor and i think it makes me a good candidate for holding something called the workshop because i do things just like anybody for the person that tinkers in the workshop to buid things, we have to draw on the knowledge of structural

engineers, we have to draw on the knowledge of architects. but when it comes time to put something together to build the building, you have to call on the people that do something so that's me. if i have one message it is that as a practitioner i view the copyright act as something of a steam punk law something filled with contraptions an into turnsp by the way that he was a cartoonist, sculptor, inventor, author, engineer so it might be fitting to call on his work. but there was an article in the sunday "new york times" about in the travel section. so i think the definition has

pretty much fallen into the common but it's kind of a genre of science fiction or speculative fiction and it involves an anachronistic company should and when i went looking for images just to get us all on the same page about what is in my mind when i say that it turns out a couple of years ago this funny 40 fellows dressed up in th that style. that's been in front of the streetcar and it dates back to the turn of the 19th and 20th century that sort of style that is illustrated on the left and that movie the voyage to the moon was made famous in the scorsese film hugo. so i think it is a lovely static

and as a practitioner i think about that because there's a contradiction that you have old technology doing modern things like taking a bullet ship to the moon from using steam to get outer space. it is an obsession with technology and that is a big part of the copyright law. and it also envisions an alternate universe that works like the wild wild west or the work of contemporary directors. so it just seems to fit with me about the state of the copyright law. it is an alternate analog universe in this digital world that we live. the next thing i would like to do is just get us on the same page about what is intellectual

property and the definition i'm going to use is by the treaty organization, the united states is a member and intellectual property means creations of the mind, inventions, literary works, motion pictures as well as the kinds of properties that we use to identify products. so it falls into two categories, industrial property, and that would be patent, trademark, industrial design, things called geographic indicators of origin which are more prevalent around the world than they are in the united states because we know we haven't set up a legal regime for that. but when you get certified why in the order him those come with a single tells you where they

come from. that's all industrial property. the other category is copyright and that covers all of our artistic work, software, broadcasting and that's what we are going to talk about today. i also want to mention there are a couple categories that would be trade secrets. this is information that gets its value from not being publicly known the most famous example would be the formula for coca-cola but i also think of related rights this would be the right of publicity and privacy and those are often in the context of working with other types of intellectual properties. so they don't fall under this definition but they are areas of the law that we need to be aware

of. so when i say that the copyright law is anachronistic is an alternate universe, i want you to know i'm not alone in my opinion. the register of copyrights and that is the head of the copyright office, that's tidal register them and she has recently testified before congress that the current copyright statute was drafted to address analog issues and to bring the u.s. into harmony with international law. she says the long trajectory to any hope that we could have an effective copyright act in the 21st century. one of her predecessors describes the current copyright law that was passed as a very

good 1950s statute. so whether it is me or barbara thinking about the 1950s, the copyright act is not of our time. so we are going to get started in the workshop in four parts and we will call them chapters since this is also a literary festival. the first chapter is where we define the basics of copyright in the 21st century. this isn't going to be a complete tour of all the provisions of the copyright act. we do need to get grounded in what we mean by copyright and the first thing we are going to do is start with statutory definitions for. and it is a nice definition in every single word of the definition is important.

copyright protections exist in the original works of authorship and any tangible medium of expression now known or later developed from which they can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated. it's a pretty understandable set of words. the statute gives a number of examples that dramatic work, choreography, the visual arts sculptors, graphical works the notion pictures and sound recordings. to understand that there are certain types of works that are extremely valuable but they don't qualify for copyright protection. and that is copyright in a very

crucial distinction, copyrights protect expressions of ideas. they do not protect the ideas or facts from the methods, systems, principles, no matter how valuable that maybe. we also do not grant copyright protection to the works by the u.s. government and its employees. they are our civil servants and belong to all of us. we don't protect these articles and that is a sort of judge made rule that comes up in the fashion world where the clothing is useful for very obvious reasons it's not to be protected under the copyright act come into the designers gets knocked off all the time and it's one of

the many topics that they have been investigating and we do need to get some type of protection. the other thing apart and that the definition as there is no reference in the formalities meaning that copyrights exist in the time that the work is created any tangibl in a tangibu don't have to register it, you don't have to put any kind of marking that says copyright, 2014. it happened at the time of creation and fixation and that was perhaps one of the most dramatic changes about the copyright law in 1976 and we will see why that's important later. the next thing we are going to talk about his authorship. the bar is pretty low so what is the authorship?

is the person that actually creates the work that takes this idea depicting a dog under an oak tree and turns it into blue dog. that is the author of a work. we also recognize to other categories of authorship under the u.s. copyright law. one is called work for hire and thathat is worked by employees d contrary to the general rule the work in the scope of employment belongs to the employee are and that is a distinction between the copyright law and the patent law. the other important authorship is a contracted work for hire, and the rule is that the copyrights belong to the hiring party if there is an agreement

and if you have certain categories of work the work for hire rule applies to and we will talk about that leader because that's very important if the copyrights belong to the author of the work, one of the most frequently litigated issues is who was the author into this question of employment and work for hire is often critical. so, you've got an author, originality. what does it get you? copyright -- this is one of the reasons they are hard for people to understand. copyrights cover a bundle of rights. it's not something -- when you own the copyrights for you own the rights to do something or the right to defend somebody

else from doing something with the work. and those rights are defined by the statute when you own the copyrights, you have the rights trightto control the reproductif the copies of the work, you have the right to control the preparation of derivatives works that would be a translation and an abridgment of the transformation of a story into a script of the transformation of the script into a motion pictu picture. you have the right to control the distribution of copies of your work. you have the right to control public performance that's important for playwrights because that gives the loyalty is for the actual performance of his works if you have the right to control the display of the

work in public and i'm using the word display in public to playback the digital audio rights. we are not talking about music. fortunately today that has its own little tortured history. so you have a bundle of rights but they are not absolute. they are subject to quite a number of limitations. the statute itself sets out 16 different limitations and the most important of the limitations is called fair use. we wouldn't get very far in this world if we didn't have some rights to use the intellectual property to the creation of the mind of others. i think we would be sitting in caves somewhere. so what is the fair use? it is to work for criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship research it's not a copyright. and that all sounds noble except that congress gave us four factors to consider in deciding whether or not a particular use is fair. we look to the character of the youth. is it profit or nonprofit? we look at the nature of the work and how much of the work was taken and used. we look at the affect of one's persons use upon the economic benefits that could be achieved by the owner of the copyrights and if you give them four factors it is a debate so everything you think you are okay as a debate. when i give this kind of talk and i'm in a face-to-face group

it is teaching the assumption that the provision is pretty broad and i could put up any kind of images that i want thatt because we are being videotaped by have to be careful about what images i put up. you have the public domain under the creative comment is free to use attribution for this purpo purpose. so, and i saw that we could all of the way that debate about whether the use is okay. there are a number of limitations on the rights of the copyright holder we give right-hand privileges to the library and rights and privileges to the nonprofit educational institution. institution. into this isn't really the place

we can go over all of them but you need to understand that the bundle of rights is not surely. but rights are great but where you get to exercise them they are good obviously throughout the united states but as a result of the treaties that our government has entered into, the copyrights are effectively international and that's really sets them apart from other properties. the other patent you have to go to the offices and if you have a trademark you have to go to the offices but because the treaties that say the basic idea is pretty and the benefits it affords to its own citizens or its own residences in the copyrights and when we go abroad in our intellectual property it has to be respected on the same

terms as other countries and effectively that makes the copyrights that internationally and that simplifies things. so the rights are good, the world is good, how long do you get your copyright? the answer is a longtime. the life of the copyright is the life of the author for the individual is the life of the author plus 70 years. so you are always looking at at least two sometimes three generations of leadership. for corporate work the rule is it is the lesser of 120 years from the creation if it is unpublished. the important thing about the chart is how long the copyright

terms are lasting and when we first enacted the copyright act that was in the 1798 was one of the first acts of the first congress. it was a 14 year term. now it is incredibly long and one professor this is a chart that was put together to give you a sense of how long and expensive this right is he looked at the copyrights and that was the first mickey mouse cartoon. every time that he's about ready to fall into the public domain the copyright act is extended. we are not alone in the united states in protecting our cultural treasure. peter pan in the united kingdom the copyright is getting extended for the benefit of the

charitable institution that they left the rights to. we are not alone and in the international norms the copyright for a long time it was the life plus 50 years that we were following international law. so this all seems very logical. we have the author of the bundle of rights, the world, when how long, it's a longtime. why is it something i can explain relatively logically why would i call that steam punk? that's why we are going to come to part number two of the presentation. so we are going to look at what i see as a practitioner a has se

of the aspects of the copyright law. first is it is an analog law. this was technology when the law was passed and it doesn't fit. publication i told you that a work for hire another term of the copyright depends on whether the work is published or not published. and very physical terms it is the making of copies and it is defined as the distribution of copies or records of the work to the public by sale or ownership. so what happens with the stuff you put on the web and with a journal that is only published on the web.

we have some guidance from the copyright office, that we don't know. this is a very fundamental question that copyrights, published or not. some of the exclusive rights apply only to the published works. so it's an important question that we are defining it in the terms of making physical copies. that is an analog problem that we deal with. sometimes i spend more time than i should have announced a copyright do a check of the published or unpublished box and it shouldn't be that difficult. another example where the analog problems come in is with the exceptions for libraries. it's almost as if the rules that

are in the statute were passed in 1976. we had a card catalogs. if you wanted to get something from the archives you have to go and write a letter. so everything is set up for physical copies that we live in a digital world. we certainly don't use that card catalogs anymore. i wonder what happened to the cases. some of them are quite lovely. and we gave material to people in digital form. so what we do? whdo we do?why is this steam pu? because under the limitations set out in congress it may be okay for a library to scan the work and attached it to the cards and the e-mail and send it

off to the requesting patrons that it might be illegal for them to post it on the website. that's not contemplated with the fair use rights given to the libraries and archives and that seems silly if i can send it to you in digital form. then we have what i called the redheaded stepchildren of the intellectual property. we have in the 21st century i don't think we can debate how software and computer coded at the same rules that apply to the literary work databases are important. we don't have a way of protecting them. the database is a collection of the fact so they become the redheaded stepchildren of our copyright world.

we have the higher works that apply to the employees and people working on the work for the higher rules so we live in a freelance world. we don't all go to work at this like this that we did in the 1950s. the work for hire rules contain the definition that's really meant for another era. it defines the work being a specially commissioned including the contributions through the collective work, part of a motion picture, a compilation, translations and indexes, tests, answers to tests but nothing about collaborating on software. nothing that would cover the

number of consultants. it's harder to shove the entity definition meant to protect the making. it doesn't work so when it comes time to make sure you get the rights to the work it's like driving a steam powered spaceship. another problem with the current state of the law is that we are all infringing all day every day of our lives.

he wakes up in the morning and checks his e-mails and replies. the program and touches to the prior e-mail. he is copying and rescinding that e-mail to somebody and the copy and distribution. if you copy the content and paste it in an e-mail printed out, use it you are infringing. and i can talk a little bit more about how the sites get around that. but it's like we have one set of the law that we live in an alternate universe where we violate the law constantly. lawlessness is never a

situation. we havthen we have the lasting favorite example that we called orphan works. orphan works are subject to copyright but the copyright owner cannot be found. so if i find a lovely article, i find a lovely image, i'm not the author, maybe it's not going to be covered by the provision, how do i get the rights. how do i ask the author but maybe the author is no longer with us into copyrights last for 70 plus years. their name may have changed. the company may have gone out of business. they'd make these in existence

they may still be there but they are not visible on the web. it is quite a problem with finding work and finding usable materials and i think that it is a -- got into the point where the congress has tried to be contrite twice to fix the problem and it's a difficult area in which to legislate. ..

>> like most people use tools, the things that are available to year. and where did those things come

from and where the concept come from. and so i started looking at the copyright tool. where does that come from? and the first thing i want you to know is that the copyrights for the relatively recent ideas. the first genuine copyright act that we have is something called the statute of queen in, it's a british statute passed in 1710. and, you know, that's just a little over 300 years ago which is not a long time. it looks like a long time to. i'm in my 50s. so, you know, it's not too bad for a law. the constitution is about 300 years old. but it is also a couple hundred years old and it's like, all right, i can live with that. but i thought what happens if we compare the copyright statute to literary creations. just looking at literature. in western literature 800 bc is

almost 300,000 years ago. so we have a lot of creation and shakespeare in the western literature, we gait that to hallmark. that is 800 bc, almost 3000 years ago. so we have had a lot of creation. a lot of creation the shakespeare wrote copyrights. and certainly reaching this before the copyrights. and truth be told people were creating long before we even got around to having the technology and the paper to put together written literary works. and so when we look back to what are the first works of art that

we can think of area venus abdulla north, 24,000 years ago. the caves were 17,000 years ago. anthropologists are finding pigment and other evidence that even our nearest related ancestors were created. and i think it is in a very important thing to take away the we are familiar with this copyright regime. parents have lived in a copyrighted world. their parents parents lived in a copyrighted world. but it's not always been the case. and i take away from looking at a chart like this. it's something that i think is very profound and that is i believe that creation is part of the human condition. it is part of our humanity. i do not think that it has

anything to do with whether there are copyrights or not. i believe if you are human you are going to create. and so i will do this quickly. ancient times they were riding in samaria and i don't understand it. but, you know, they had to chisel that story and they were creating and it was the first millennium before anybody could find any kind of hit and tran-tens that there was a copyright dispute and involved two irish saints. saint columba copied assaulter the soldier of saint finian and saint finian objected. in the copier had to give his

copy of it back to finian. and this was his reasoning. to every cow belonged to it's calf. and this was about 500 a.d. so the first one is 1710. so we have a long time from this one dispute that historians have been able to define before we have formal copyright legislation. in fact people who know more than i do about the history of copyright law has said that at no time during our manuscript period, did anyone assert an author's copyrights. that is a long time. that started to change with one of the last great historical and technological innovations. and that was the movable type printing press.

it is the impact of gutenberg, it was enormous. and you always hear that. i'm someone who likes numbers and we put together charts and graphs and we see things like that. it has been estimated that before gutenberg's press the number of books in europe numbered in the thousands. and that was very important at that time. and that illustrates the age that we are living in now, it is just as transformative. because it is hard to get this number and how many webpages are there?

google indexes these of one of the tools that we use. in 1998 when we were a very young company. it was 26 million pages. the last time that google estimated were made public its estimate of pages, there were 1 trillion webpages. think about that. and think about that. that's over 140 web addresses for every person on this planet. and that is just amazing. and so it's like over 140 web addresses for every person on this planet. it is amazing. and so what happened the last time that we had a technological revolution like this? well, we had, you know, like we

do now. we had a variety of responses to it. and what happened is -- it was a big investment in technology to learn how to get a printing press operated. and the people who own the technology wanted privilege and. does this sound familiar to us? you know, if i bought the printing press and set the type for this, i wanted to finish that book exclusively. because i put all of this expert into it. in many countries historically, that is where the rights over these books resided with the printers. not the authors. this is the 15th and 16th century. it is with the printers. we have some inkling called the

early experimental timeframe of printing and it is some inkling that authors of up to be involved in and we have the jewish community in venice recognizing that the person who wrote this had written music for services ought to be in control so his family could be provided for and i think it was a period of 10 years. so there is some experimentation and mostly what is being protected is the printer. and i will tell you why. and we will look at english history because it shapes so much of the law that we have today. this is an engraving from the victorian era of the first printing press to hit great britain. and here he is demonstrating a

press to edward for and the unfortunately thing it arises in what is the middle of an incredible amount of religious turmoil in britain. so being among the monarchy they see control of the press as a way to control information and it's part of the exercise of power and privilege. so the monarch controlled who had licenses. they were called privileges. who had the privilege of printing. the printers are happy to go along with this idea because that protects them as the exclusive source in their lives. so it protects them in these ways and they can have philip

and mary come back its successors to henry viii and they licensed it to print pro poker literature. and then the stewards come in and then we have the romans that are out. the protestants are back. we switch our public is and we've got the puritans that come in and they take over and there is a pure puritan press which show these images and white the man by the name of ray patterson , he is really a tremendous copyright scholar, he

says through all of these institutes the stationers themselves steadfastly remain what they had always been. eminently practical men and they consistently protected their privileged monopoly. so what you have is a terrible situation of strangled information and by the time they get to this this is an image. and the situation is untenable. so we have the beginning of the enlightenment and people are not happy with information not being readily available. they are not happy that he can only get a substandard copy of his works for the translation. some of the ancient works that he was interested in. as if someone had a privileged

monopoly. so he was a big lobbyist and i should've put this on the side. and we have a period of time where we didn't know what the regime was and it is 1710. so 20 years after they are abolished and trent abolished we have a statute. so we have what is this situation. i this time america has been a part of it. this was not extended to the colony. and after the revolution one of the things that they have is certainly a lot of people with agrarian interests and we also had people like ben franklin and thomas jefferson and these are

people that were authors and so they were very interested in this issue than the constitution itself says that congress shall have the power to promote the progress in science and industry in the useful art by securing this to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. and so the first copyright was passed in 1790. in it it says that there is a very early on and that is a halfpenny. and parents of science and industry. this was a centrally important thing for us. the thing about our early copyright law is that it did involve formalities at

registration. you have to register your copyright to get it in the copyright notice that is on your work and it's a very short-term, 14 years. see you would think that that would bring us into this and we started having international problems. the most famous of which is charles dickens. because i forgot to mention something very important to you. american copyrights before them solely. if you were an author, copyright wanted in the united states. well, dickens like many authors was a treasure in his lifetime. and it seemed to work and they put him on the ship sailing to the united states and he had an official publisher here and that

official publisher gave him royalty and there were unofficial publishers at his work and he didn't keep any royalty from that work. on one of his trips he went to testify or he spoke to congress and he asked them to address this problem of america's copyright and nothing happened because he was sort of like our internet service providers today. those of yesterday one of their profits protection and it worked both ways. because americans had trouble in britain and this is a tragic story of melville in britain. because of the uncertain status of american copyrights of american authors in britain, one thing they did to tweak the

system and improve their position is publish their published their book first in britain and then in america. so you might have a better shot of getting a copyright. and melville sent moby dick to be published for and the british publisher did not include the epilogue. so if you read this book about everyone and if you don't have the epilogue you don't know that ishmael survived. so the reviews of him were just terrible. if it doesn't make any sense. how is everyone died. and this doesn't make any sense. well, in addition to violating the copyright of literary works, the american newspapers would pick up british book reviews.

so even though the american publishers publish the whole moby dick, which explains everything, sort of, it certainly makes the book makes sense. even melville was the subject of having them reprinted in people at the time never found that book. this is the international situation. so here comes this on to the theme another one of the 19th century situations. it's not tenable and it does not cross borders. authors cross borders, across borders. we have to fix it. and there is one thing that was set up in 1886. and victor hugo was one of the major ones is behind that treaty

and it was basically something that is overly simplistic and whatever you do for your own you do for a foreigner. so we've still been living under this regime. so in the united states we try and we were tied to some formalities. if you want copyright to have to register them. you have to put this copyright notice on them and you have have to say the name and the year that your copyrighted. we didn't want to give up that kind of formality because there is none under this convention. and we tried everything and we had americans and copyright convention and we did not join until 1989. and so that is sort of -- i think that history of copywriting is important when it

comes to the last section of my talk. which is that we need to talk about the future. and the first thing is you might have guessed that it's time for a new law. this is not just copyright in louisiana and the vanunu copyright act. so the scholars say we need a new copyright act. anyone who has those things that we need a new copyright act. the register of it is diplomatic she told congress a year ago this month that the law is showing the strain of its image. so as people are talking about a new copyright act, anywhere that we see a lot of interest in

scholarship and an information about intellectual property in general, i graduated from law school in 1985 and one i graduated from college they gave me a black fly victory and it was a graduation gift. there is not a definition of intellectual property and the blacks law dictionary. such copyright in general. and it was a little bit of a backwater of american law everywhere. so we are starting to look hard at the and the scholarship, i have to tell you,, if anything i figured it makes you interest to, please start investigating these issues. because the scholarship is trying to be very stunning. and we are kind of stuck in part

because the people who had the biggest waste concerns have been stuck and the government is certainly stuck that intellectual property is important. and i'm going to quote the ip protection is critical to fostering innovation. without it business and individuals have not reached the full benefit of their invention and would focus less on research and development and similarly artists would not be fully compensated for the creation and cultural vitality as a result. though shakespeare the 21st century. [laughter] and so people are starting to test this hypothesis. if you don't give people the biggest and baddest and longest copyright available, it won't

create or innovate. and so this is a chart that was put together by the university of illinois. he is a law and economics school of thought. and he said the book at the effect of copyright. one of the shopping and i think appalling things that is popping out of this research is that copyrights are killing books. and i think it had to do with clearances. it's not that people don't want to pay authors their royalties. but it takes a long time to track down who oppose this to a book published in 1985 and believe me, it does take time and then they do a lot of research only to find out that you can't find the person and when they first come out there is a big pop and the books are

available. but as we go back in time, you're more likely to be able to find the for the 1880s and 1980. and there's something wrong with that. you know, maybe some of our cherished ideas just don't hold water. and people, they are also doing this with a similar typesetting. the piracy of music we can easily download and copy music, if the cycling creativity. and i think he's ready. and i keep coming back to that chart and i think it is part of human nature to be creative. if humans were chilling out this story at gilgamesh in ancient samaria, there is no way we are

going to sit down in front of computers and not use them. we are going to innovate. and i'm really not doing justice to the amount of thought that is being put into what kinds of copyright are available. because i don't want to misunderstand what i'm name. not that they aren't important. it's not that authors should and have certain control over their work. i am not in an august. but i do think that we do need to come up with a system that works better for the type of age in which we would. so while we are waiting this took 20 years to negotiate. it started in the 50s and it got back to being written in

1956. technology is going ask potentially and we can't sit around figuring out what to do. and many bright people have come up with some alternatives. and one of them is called the creative commons. are you all familiar with the creative commons? okay. we have maybe 25 or 30% of the audience. it is what makes wikipedia possible. it does not supplant copyright. the authors have the right that they have and what it sets up is a licensing scheme and there are six flavors of creative commons licenses. and if you say they you really says and you specify one of these fixed licenses, people

know that they can do this and the one is attribution and all you have to do is give credit to me and we are good. and use it, copy it, you can change it and you can even make money doing whatever you do. but you just have to say it started with me. the second level or tear is called attribution share life and you can change it and you can pretty much modify it and you can share it and you've got to give the author credit. but when you make use of that work you have a licensed portion of your work at the same time that you license mine. so that is the right in wikipedia. so where would we be without that? okay.

the next one down is called attribution no derivatives license. you can't modify the work. you can't make this part of this work. you can use it commercially but you just can't change it so give me credit and not another variation of it. give me credit, don't make any money off of using my work. and so you can use it. you can modify it. but you can't charge money for it. no commercial usage and you have to let other people use it the way that you use mine. the last one is the most restrictive, which is noncommercial non-derivative.

you can't make any changes to the work. and that is the most restrictive license. so when you relieve the content. some of the images, i could go to image finder on the internet. i can see if i'm authorized to use this work and has this been released under a creative commons license and i need to know what to do to manipulate it and change it. so that has been revolutionary and i wonder if someone should get out of chart and see what happens to the number of red pages before and after we started having this come through. and the other thing is something called open source publishing. this is of particular concern

for academics. and there is a lot to get something ready for publication. i get why publishers deserve to be paid. but i also have trouble with the idea of locking knowledge behind this. and especially the issue becomes more tax money, we certainly have the and we certainly pay for a lot of the institutions where the scientists work and our tax dollars probably provide a lot of grant to those individuals. and the results of their research is like paid subscription services. and that has been on troublesome

portions to a number of people. it cuts down and it certainly turns a constitutional idea of promoting this with using copyrights to lock in information and knowledge away. so not that long ago a group of people got together and came up with the concept of open access publishing. that this would be the typical idea of scholar writing for other scholars to share information and we are talking about how these are not a garage blog.

and, you know, this is legitimate academic publishing and open source publication has also been revolutionary and it has also grown exponentially. i think it's also very telling and this is something that has just happened, i once say up to two weeks ago. and this goes back to the mission of economic studies that we are dealing with copyrights. the idea of maximizing enforcement and making access using copyrights to make it more difficult isn't really working in our marketplace. and earlier this month they changed the policy.

and they got tens of millions of images, they have a phenomenal number of resource is. versus watermark in the middle of the picture and we could see at and if you went to use it to include how much you have to pay depending on where you're going to use it or so now just this month, and this is how rapidly things are changing, you can sign up with getty images and you can take the images out about phenomenal correction of tens of millions of images and you can reuse them. those are quid pro quo and it's

like the quid pro quo on youtube. you need an image with an embedded program and that viewer is getting control over the way that that is a trade just like those nasty youtube advertisements that come up and see you can get access to these banks of information. by controlling how it displays and we are not going to exercise this but we are going to enter into a bargain that will control

whether this is part of revenue. but i don't want to say that this doesn't have some issues. it's sort of like borrowing the lawnmower from your neighbor. but i think it's telling that without access to an archive like that, we are saying that we are going to make the easier not harder for you to use that content. so coming to my last slide which is not the image of star trek that i couldn't clear they cover their main image and my message here is they can put this back in there.

and we don't want to go back to using card catalogs at the library. we don't want to go back to using this in the home. you know, we like to digital air that we live in. it needs to be improved on in many ways. i would say that to get involved like a train wreck. congress is looking at fixing little pieces of a educational usage. at the copyright office to give us this lower value infringement.

we need to treat the things that are bleeding right now. and we also need to look at a bigger picture of health and that means the health and well-being of authors in the may not be their best strategy and we need people to create content and we need authors and entrepreneurs and we need a very robust public domain and to be able to access that information that is created out there in the creation of the mind. and that's really part of the three interest groups. author, entrepreneur and a 21st

century version of the printer in the public domain. and so when i look at this it is very easy for the author and songwriter on their voice in congress. if you are a successful entrepreneur, mike zuckerberg, president obama, they get hurt. what is hardest to get to the general discourse is the voice of the public domain. and i would like to see people from the humanities and anthropologists and economist, a

very robust discussion about what the copyrights mean for people and what they mean for us in our society. i think we might need a new vocabulary. i don't think the word property by covers the interaction of this of the copyright act. and i think that we have to be very careful about making this too much about poverty. when the closes with two thoughts. i think you may have read about the faulkner estate with woody allen being tapped for the movie at midnight in paris. owen wilson in that movie pair phrases very famously and he

says that the past is not dead, it's not even past. and woody allen received copyright infringement part of this snippet. so i can just be where the estate would come up with the idea that they would be able to claim some kind of copyright infringement and there are little sampling of music that have to be sampled. everything that appears in a motion picture. the product placement is not just about selling goods but making sure that you have the right to publicly display everything that you see up on the screen. so i can see where we had this

idea of taking this out of the faulkner book. fortunately the district judge said no and i think that case illustrates that if we give absolute control over literary property to authors, it really announces the enter ship that is just as permissions as dark days in great britain where you are deciding the puritans or though broyles. it just doesn't make any sense. and i think it is appropriate to end on that note at the tennessee williams festival because there is one thing about it in her work. and that is the notion of

censoring language i think it would have been part of this. this is a man who had touched his elevated and it's not just the rewards that come out. but it's also how powerfully he can manipulate a single word. all i have do is save the life and you know what i mean. all i have to do is say this and you know what i mean. one word. so i think that words are important. i think authors are important and i hope that other literary festivals will also start talking about the because the issues are important. and i thank you for your time. [applause]

>> we will take some questions. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> think it is time [inaudible] so that this is hands-on with the copyright with america and also what do you think about [inaudible] which is part of if i buy an e-book, a sort of give them this. >> correct. the question is whether or not he should have had a different world based on the type of media and what do i think about is

management. well, i think that one of the things that the scholars are writing about is whether or not need to set up different rules based on the type of working questions. i think that a decidedly important. and i think it's a helpful direction. because what works and music marketplace and if that is the way that it wants to operate, that's great. that may be in a literary cinematic storytelling marketplace we need to be able to say that past is not dead and not worry about getting the lawsuit. so i think that that is certainly one of the areas where scholars are looking very hard and the other thing that talks about that digital rights

management and part of the story that wasn't what is how powerful technology and the entrepreneurs have about what happened in the library and archives are limping along on her 1950s version of these rights. but every time a satellite provider cable wasn't around in 1976 either. this includes digital music distribution and technologists need to be updated and refreshed, they amend the statute with the copyright act and i think it has been amended 35 times.

and we have not updated this with some legislation there. and some of them are just dying under this very archaic system. and one of the things that they got was something called the digital copyright act was passed in 1998 or 1999 that is about 15 years old. and it did two things. it protected the internet service provider and you would be in a safe harbor. so the user goes on facebook and pose infringing content. and youtube won't be responsible. internet service providers will be responsible so long as they

have done up a procedure so if you see your song or your photograph or your work published without your permission in this infringing manner on the website, contact the service and take it down. if they take it down and they will go through a time of responsible or malady that will follow. but that shields them from liability. if you are talking about copyrights you have to worry about the rights and the management of what you have going on. this has been taken care of. the second thing that the copyright act dead doesn't mean it illegal to tinker with digital rights management. like with e-books or you have the licensing access to that

digital media and the person can protect that media and say that you can't monday he tried to use it in a way that is not authorized, i can take it back from you. and this is one thing that is a very fundamental change. so once you buy a copy of the work of this book, i can lend it and i can do anything i want with it. some of the old blockbuster. it is my work and it's my copy and i own it with digital copies and all of a sudden that ownership doesn't give me as much right. and so i think honestly that will be talked about.

i understand why this makes sense. i don't think it was comparably calibrated to say let us protect the entrepreneur who made all of the digits mission possible. but the entrepreneurs are working in the public domain, people who want to share this and that's important and that is one of the things that i had in my mind when i said entrepreneurs are represented and others are represented to think about the public domain and all that represents. you are there any more questions? >> oh, wait.

[inaudible question] >> is it more dangerous now than before for someone to grab your work? >> i don't really think that there is a danger in sending a manuscript. there is no incentive for the agent. it's an easy problem to remedy and someone would absolutely deserve all the copyright penalties.

and you really don't see people bringing claims about e-mails and things like that. it's just the notion that we have a set of rules that we violate every day of our lives not just doesn't make sense because the threat is out there. the chances that someone would complain about this and a literary festival are small and why have the uncertainty. and it is a form of censorship. and it's a prophetic thing. but anyone with a smart phone can see exactly what i'm talking about. >> that doesn't make sense. >> thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> with tv is on facebook or it like us to interact with guests and viewers, watch videos and get up-to-date information on event area facebook.com/booktv. >> the car spun around in a circle. driver instantly wanted to know what was going on.

♪ >> they kept us in the vaccine. choose life or about 35 minutes until they cut her out. ♪ ♪ >> hello. i'm 16 years old and i'm ready start driving. i'm very eager, yet i'm also very scared. many drivers today are focusing their attention on their cell phones rather than on the road. this show shows us that it's incredibly dangerous and cell phones have no place behind the wheel. something needs to be done about this. >> we have announced the winners of this year's