A Critique
The proprietary framework established by intellectual property lawignores trends in literary theory. It also avoids accounting for the uniquecapabilities of computer technology. Computer technology makes newrelationships between the author, the reader, and the text possible. Asauthorship fragments and texts become hypertexts, a serious clash of interestsbound by the tension between sovereignty and exchange is produced. As PeterJazi writes:
A battle is shaping over the future of the Internet. On the one side are thosewho see its potential as a threat to traditional notions of individualproprietorship in information, and who perceive the vigorous extension oftraditional copyright principles as the solution. On the other side are thosewho argue that the network environment may become a new cultural "commons,"which excessive or premature legal control may stifle.[1]
This chapter attempts to bring together the different stories told throughoutthe dissertation and provide a critique of these stories. As Jazi point out, abattle much like the battle of the booksellers is shaping. Through thecourtrooms, congressional hearings and debates, popular articles describingthose involved, and international agreements a sovereignty discourse isemerging. Those using this discourse are concerned with establishing a holdover the internet via the traditional copyright story. They are attempting tolocate cyberspace within the traditional boundaries of the sovereign state andcopyright law. Much like the battle of the booksellers, protection of author'srights is a rallying cry for stricter control over the internet. Additionally,protection of legitimate business interests in this new "global marketplace" istouted as more important than the type of exchange currently engaged in on theinternet. In order to construct new political frameworks it is necessary tospeak about technology as transformative. It is time to critique this storyand begin the process of building a counter-discourse.
There is no doubt technology will transform the way information is transmittedand owned. M. Ethan Katsh argues copyright will ultimately be transformed fromthe core.
If this analysis is correct, the most important areas of future change tocopyright, obscenity, and privacy will not be the means of enforcement but thecore ideas that are at the heart of particular rules of law. Each area of lawdeveloped because of the capabilities of print. Each reveals a desire both tocontrol information and to achieve an accommodation among First Amendmentconcerns, property interests, and social or moral values. The definition ofeach legal doctrine implies a particular balance among these competinginterests, and it is this balance that is currently vulnerable.[2]
The core transformation of copyright is the subject of this chapter. While thesovereignty impulse shows its force on the national and international agenda,technology itself works against that impulse. The print dominated age iswaning. Digitized information needs new perspectives and new rules. The timehas come for significant changes to be made in our understanding ofintellectual property. There are already manifestations of a new language inwhich to speak of intellectual property appearing.[3] This language, and the relationships produced throughit, need to be developed and nurtured.
However, a new vocabulary will not be easy to build. Technology, along withproviding the space from which to take a critical look at society, producesfragmentation as noted by Mark Poster, "If contestatory language is to emergetoday, it must do so in the context of TV ads and databases, of computers andcommunications satellites, not in a culture of co-present talk or consensualdebate."[4] New vocabularies emergethrough the process of the language game,[5] not the ideal speech situation. This posses difficultyfor a coherent strategy, but fits well within a framework dedicated tomultilocality. Whether a exchange strategy based upon this type of resistancecan prevail against the sovereignty maintenance tactics of the state andprivate businesses is yet to be seen.
This chapter is primarily concerned with a critique of the traditionalcopyright story. It is increasingly clear that the traditional copyright storywill not keep up with global exchange of information. As previous chaptershave pointed out, the threat to the sovereignty of the United States andtraditional economic industries is great enough to warrant tighter controls andthe criminalization of exchange related behavior. Emphasizing thepossibilities of new technology is one method to help construct a democraticvocabulary which endorses the free flow of information.
THE TRADITIONAL COPYRIGHT STORY REVISITED
Copyright law is prone to a variety of critiques. The predominant critique isan economic one. In the United States, and throughout the globe, culturalsymbols are increasingly in the hands of a few giant producers.[6] Additionally, in order to better control the market incopyrighted products, copyright has been extended over virtually all possibleapplications of a copyrighted work. Many illegal uses of copyrighted workstoday, such as unauthorized public performance, would have been legal 100 yearsago. Each new addition to the copyright law, including additions related tocomputer technology, extends of control over the use of creative work. Whilecopyright is intended to strike a balance between public access and monopolyprivileges, this balance is tilted in favor of private ownership. As each newcopyright "right" is added the exchange of cultural symbols becomes moredifficult. Given these conditions, it is fair to say the law is not neutral,but favors corporate owners of texts. These groups tend to be favored becauseit is difficult to make normative claims within the boundaries of statutoryinterpretations. The law is about how the statutes should be interpreted, notabout who ought to be protected.
A normative claim like, "a daycare ought to be able to put Mickey Mouse ontheir walls because it brings joy to the children" has no standing. Copyright leaves little room for issues of cultural production and control.The traditional story of copyright operates under the assumption thatindividual authors are protected, while the law is used to protect largecorporations and industries who strategically keep authors in the forefront oftheir battles.[8] Once the rubric ofstatutory copyright protection is accepted, the possibility of an economiccritique is limited. In fact, if the rubric of statutory copyright isaccepted, there is little room for normative claims to be made at all. I wouldlike to address some of the underlying assumptions of the American copyrightsystem. Assumption One: Copyright promotes innovation A first important assumption undergirding American copyright law is thatprotection spurs invention and creation. This is one of the most commonlyasserted "facts" about copyright law. Presumably, copyright provides anatmosphere in which author's will exchange ideas freely once offeredappropriate protections. However, it is a questionable assertion at best. Itis not creation that is protected, but the production of creative materials. What is at issue is what types of creations occur within such asystem. As Jeff Seaver, President of the Graphic Artists Guild testifies, Sure it's true that I'd continue to draw even if I wasn't being paid accordingto a value for value exchange; but I sure as hell wouldn't be drawing theproverbial "whale of a sale" or even illustrations for magazines. I'd beforced to make a living -- pay my rent and buy food and clothes another way,I'd save my creative output for my personal ideas and projects.[9] This statement indicates that the type of creative work made available woulddiffer, but that the incentive to create would continue to be present. It has already been mentioned that copyright obscures economic and industrialties by relying on the notion of the individual author as the one needingprotection. This is certainly true. Industry is also vocal about its need forcopyright protection in order to spark innovation. However, the effect on theproduction of creative work by industry absent strong intellectual propertylaws is negligible as well. The fact that companies research, market anddistribute intellectual property works in an atmosphere where piracy is rampantillustrates there are other motivations for creation besides copyright atwork. Despite rampant piracy of their programs, computer companies continue toinvest a great deal of money in programs and in countries where piracy is mostcommonplace. Why would they engage in this activity if the lack ofintellectual property law inhibited their production? Perhaps becauseintellectual property law is merely one tool which provides protection forindustry. Intellectual property has nothing to do with research and development. Inorder to be competitive in the market a company will continue these practices.Copyright provides companies with exclusive control over their products andpotential markets. Copyright is about establishing boundaries around a givenproduct. The law is continually redefined to better protect products in themarketplace and copyright gives companies a claim to potential markets as well.If a pirate sells copies of a copyrighted work for a reduced price he/she istapping a market reserved exclusively for the copyright owner. Even if thepeople buying the cheaper product could not afford the regular item, theinfringer is taking "prospective" sales away from the company and must bestopped. Thus, current business practices provides evidence that research anddevelopment will not stop, nor will creative production. Copyright is used asa club to eliminate all unauthorized uses of intellectual property. The enlightenment notion of exchange of ideas has been replaced with theeconomic notion of right to a monopoly. In no other aspect of economic tradeis a monopoly conferred to provide the first entry with exclusive rights.However, under copyright, cultural producers expect a monopoly over all aspectsof a cultural work. The result is litigation to stop what many feel isvaluable cultural appropriation.[10] Thetraditional story helps obscure how authorial creation has been replaced withindustrial sovereignty. Assumption Two: A balance exists between public access and authorialprotection The goal of intellectual property is to furnish adequate protection to theauthor so the public can benefit from the creation. As Brown andRushing note in their introduction to Intellectual Property Rights inScience, Technology, and Economic Performance, "The essential problem is tostrike a balance; enough protection to sustain incentives to the innovator, butnot too much protection to allow for the maximization of the social good." When a copyrighted work is illegally copied what has been taken? Whatconstitutes the theft? Obviously, the ideas are still intact. "What is beingstolen is not the object nor a property of the object, but rather a market forthe object or the possibility of being able to exploit the commercial potentialof the object."[12] As ideas becomeincreasingly commodified, even though they are prone to sharing, copyrightinfringement becomes a larger issue. A moral argument against copyrightemerges, but has no ground within the arena of copyright law. Market controlbenefits the largest cultural producer, in this case America. On a nationaland international level, America takes an active role in defining intellectualproperty to ensure their continued dominance in intellectual property relatedmarkets.[13] The political economy of intellectual property is evident in the approach theUnited States takes versus the developing world. As Brown and Rushing note,"Developing countries think of intellectual property -- the results of scienceand technology -- as a public good. On the other hand, industrial countriesview intellectual property primarily as a means of maintaining a competitiveedge in the marketplace as well as of providing monetary returns to theindividual investor."[14] The balancebetween public good and private gain is tenuous at best, and certainly looksdifferent depending on which side of privilege you stand upon.[15] As Chapter Five illustrates, the public good argument put forth by developingcountries is considered a smoke screen for their real motivations -- the piracyof America's creative genius. The United States does not understand the publicgood unless it is filtered through private profit. Instead, it sees thoseattempting to protect the public good made available through ideas as piratesand immoral criminals. The United States transforms economic wealth into themoral imperative and calls countries wishing to protect their public goodimmoral. This basic critique argues that secured monopolies in knowledge keepinventions and creative works from public use instead of fully disseminatingthese works. The Developing world is on the losing end. As technologicalinnovation becomes an important aspect of development, as well as a tightlycontrolled commodity, the Developing world will have even more to be worriedabout. Assumption three: A distinction between ideas and expression can be made.Assumption four: The text is a bounded entity. Copyright exists because the courts have deemed it possible to distinguishbetween ideas and expression, with a clearly defined text that can be infringedas the result. This idea/expression dichotomy and the levels of abstractiontest recognize on the one hand that cultural work can be based upon commoncultural themes without infringing. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguishbetween the ideas and the expression and sometimes a new creative piece mayresult from copying a specific "expression" directly.[16] Courts tend to ignore that most cultural works are dependent upon theappropriation and transformation of other works. To use a phrase RosemaryCoombe borrows from M. de Certeau -- creation is usually "textual poaching."Textual poaching is at the heart of cultural dialogue, without which ourculture would stagnate. Rosemary Coombe suggests, As Michel de Certeau and Paul Willis argue, consumption is always a form ofproduction and people continually engage in cultural practices ofbricolage -- resignifying media meanings, consumer objects, and culturaltexts in order to adapt them to their own interests and make them fulfill theirown purposes. These practices are central to the political practices of thosein marginal or subordinated social groups who forge "subcultures" withresources foraged from the mediascape."[17] When large industries own the key cultural symbols, and rigorously defend theiruse, the culture as a whole suffers. What is unique about property in expressions and ideas is that oncedistributed they cannot be returned.[18]My ideas are only my own if I do not share them. The minute they arecommunicated, enforcing my property right becomes virtually impossible. Whatis important is the dialogue fostered via ideas. The tension between sovereignty and exchange is perhaps the greatest incultural production and reproduction.[19]Rosemary Coombe argues tightly controlled intellectual property boundaries,with little or no room for cultural interpretation, strips us of our humanityby depriving us of the ability to transform signs.[20] While commercialization of signs is not complete, andtherefore not solely responsible for stripping us of our humanity, she makes anexcellent point about how boundaries created by intellectual property denyaccess to signs and freeze cultural evolution. She states, What I am suggesting here is that intellectual property laws may deprive us ofthe optimal cultural conditions for dialogic practice. By objectifyingand reifying cultural forms -- freezing the connotations of signs and symbolsand fencing off fields of cultural meaning with "no trespassing" signs --intellectual property laws may enable certain forms of political practice andconstrain others.[21] By depriving us of dialogue, or the option of building upon the creation ofothers, we deprive ourselves of an essential element of cultural growth. The unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence of intellectual property lawis to further control ownership of ideas in such a manner that new creation orappropriation becomes difficult. Legal attitudes towards intellectual propertyhave important implications within this framework: If both objective social worlds and subjective desires, identities, andunderstandings are constructed with cultural resources, then legal attitudestoward cultural forms may have profound implications. Laws creating andenforcing intellectual property rights permit, maintain, and perpetuate thecommodification of cultural texts and images by securing their marketvalue...Copyright laws restrict the social flow of texts photographs, music,and most other symbolic works. All these forms retain their culturalqualities, however, and in a world where mass media tends to monopolize thedissemination of signifying forms, the cultural resources available to us (andwithin us) are increasingly the properties of others.[22] Intellectual property relies upon the sovereignty impulse and the politicaldynamics created by this impulse are damaging to cultural change. Assumption Five: Authorship is important. To problematize copyright one must problematize the sovereign impulse ofproprietary authorship. As Foucault notes, this notion of authorship aids inthe construction of certain discourses in society. Despite efforts to isolatetexts via authors, writing tends to be collaborative in nature.[23] A novel is not written in isolation, it goes throughdrafts and has numerous editors. Any movie in production is worked on byhundreds of people. A dissertation is certainly not the work of an individual,even though only one name appears as author and said author is to havecontributed something 'original' to the discipline. This assumption was dealtwith in Chapter One when I talked about literary criticism and its perspectiveon authorship. Peter Jaszi argues that the "persistence of the notion of "authorship" inAmerican copyright law makes it difficult for any new legal synthesis, whichwould focus on the reality of collective creativity, to emerge." American copyright law is heavily reliant on the notion of proprietary authorwhich emerged in the 18th century. In American law, proprietary authorshipextends to expressions in any medium.[27]Copyright is culturally shored up by our impression of authorship as anindividual occupation. To label someone a literary author, not to mention anartist or musician, is to produce a powerful cultural image -- a creativegenius working to produce the masterpieces of the century, often under harshconditions. In reality, copyright in the United States protects the majorcultural industries far better than the individual author. Most cultural"products" are not the property of the creator, but of the company that employsthem.[28] Highlighting the authorfunction as a method for conferring legitimacy to some texts and not to othersis the beginning of a literary critique important for copyright. The discourseworks to privileged the owners of information. It works to smooth overassumptions about authorship and to reaffirm the traditional copyright story.Exchange is defined as theft -- a fact which became increasingly clear in thediscussion about hackers. Robert Rotstein notes that while patent courts make every effort to bring thelatest techniques in any given field into the court to aid in making decisions,the courts have not extended this courtesy in the realm of literary criticismand its applicability to copyright.[29]Literary criticism challenges the modern understanding of authorship andoriginality. American law, because of its utilitarian approach, has fairly lowstandards of originality.[30] However, asFeist proves, a spark of creativity is needed. In doing so, theromantic, and proprietary author as original genius, the distinguishingcharacteristic of the modern author, indivisible from the commodification ofliterary texts is accepted.[31] WhileFoucault mentions the author function is a boundary-function between the textand the reader, this boundary, contrary to legal definitions, is permeable andunstable. The individual proprietary author is in many ways a myth of thecopyright system that ignores the way cultural production operates. Inhabiting the very notion of intellectual property and copyright is acounter-force which fosters exchange. This exchange impulse can be used tochallenge the ownership of information or cultural property, it defies theboundaries authors wish to create between themselves and the public, and,especially in the area of new technologies, it decentralizes order and control.It is a pleasant irony that the exchange metaphor, one of the key concepts of acapitalist system, can be used in a manner that attacks the capitalist systemat its roots. The framework of sovereignty versus exchange is critical tounderstanding the tensions in copyright and makes the current debates over howcopyright should be conceived clearer. Most recent literary and copyright criticism rejects the traditional story infavor of a more complex network of cultural creativity. What is becomingobvious is that copyright is an unstable concept relying heavily uponlitigation and legal definition for continued support. The overemphasis ofownership is the logical outcome of the existing statutory regulations thatassume authorship is a tightly bounded identity, that assume the text can befixed tangibly and never changes, and that assume ownership of ideas is thebest possible method for facilitating creativity. New technologies are a powerful tool for challenging the assumptions uponwhich American copyright is founded, and evaluating the advantages of thissystem. Computer technology helps problematize the boundaries the traditionalstory of copyright was designed to construct. Premised upon this critique ofthe assumptions of the traditional story, I would like to evaluate thepotential of technology as it relates to authorship and ownership in the nextsection. There are exchange based alternatives which are making headway. Iwish to give voice to some of these. THE INVENTION OF AUTHORSHIP IN THE INFORMATION AGE There is a critical difference between intellectual property and tangibleproperty -- intellectual property can be shared and used by more than oneperson simultaneously. It is difficult to conceptualize ownership in ideas andexpressions because once an idea is shared it becomes the property of all. Assigning authorship is one method used to control ideas after they arecommunicated. This author function, described in Chapter One, is a powerfulmethod for controlling dialogue. The author function corresponds to a specificmode of reading as well. Reading changes from an act of self-recognition tothe recognition of the intellect of the writer.[33] Copyright law helps solidify the notion of authorshipas a textual boundary. Computer software illustrates the sovereignty function of authorship. Theemergence of a proprietary software author models the emergence of theproprietary literary author in many respects. In the 18th century, a marketeconomy was needed before literary "professionals" could emerge. The software industry had less problems establishing program writers asproprietary authors. Afterall, the discourse of the individual proprietaryauthorship was well established before computers were invented. All that wasneeded was to strategically transform computer software into a literary workand the protection due a literary creation could be granted. Prior to thedevelopment of a software market there was no notion of proprietary authorshipin software. As Steven Levy recounts, the hacker ethic of total freedom ofinformation pervaded the computer community.[35] Once a market in software emerged, the discourse ofauthorship already inhabiting literary works was quickly translated into thetechnological arena. For a short time it appeared that software would have its stars just as anyother cultural industry. One example was John Harris, who worked for a companycalled Sierra On-Line. His love for writing programs made him one of the mostwell known and well paid software designers of the 80s. However, thetransformation of the computer industry from anarchistic freedom to bottomlines meant the end of actual John Harris' but the continuation of the image ofan authorial John Harris. As the industry began catering to less technically oriented consumers (themass market) the technical ingenuity of the computer hacker became lessimportant. Pumping out programs that were functionally inferior, but could bewell advertised, became the predominant way to do business.[36] Instead of the rock-star computer programmer, companiesmoved to college educated computer programmers who would work for hire insteadof for a percentage of sales. Under the newer system the software writer wassimply another employee. The software industry clearly illustrates how the romantic author is used as ajustification for ownership. Copyright in computer programs ignores the factthat creation is not an individual act, but that each new development isreliant on other software, other ideas, conversations, and the generalsurrounding culture. Copyright became a tool used to support a burgeoningindustry. Computer technology can substantially change authorship. Computer technologyhighlights the communal nature of intangible property because it is easier toexchange information, ideas, and expressions, than own them. In the face ofnew technologies it becomes increasingly difficult to solidify the boundariesof ownership. This new electronic environment provides a mechanism fordisruption of the traditional copyright story. This disruption takes the formof new definitions of authorship and originality. In the electronic age individuals are increasingly aware of the division inownership of knowledge.[37] Theelectronic age also provides numerous opportunities for the average American tosubvert the traditional intellectual property system. As noted in ChapterThree, most Americans do not value intellectual property in the same way theowners of the copyright do. Instead, they see the tangible item (the book orrecord) as their personal property to do with what they wish. Instilling anotion of respect for intellectual property is a critical task for the ownersof intellectual property rights, however, the subversion of this system iseasily accomplished in everyday life simply through cultural appropriation. Those who consider themselves "authors" find it impossible to control theirwork once it enters the electronic realm. Authors as boundaries of texts, theauthor-function, is diluted as texts move freely from one electronic account toanother. Because each individual can reproduce data easily, electronic mediafosters exchange of information through multiplication. People on theinternet, like people in face-to-face situations, communicate by sharinginformation, stories, and news. Anyone with experience using electronic mailhas seen the chains of addresses at the top of the message indicating all theprevious readers. Additionally, anyone who has used electronic mail has passedalong an interesting item to a few friends, and so on, and so on... Authors are faced with some serious problems as they bypass the industry andconnect with communities of readers. First, authors lose control over theirwork much faster than in print. Authors, in order to engage in the exchange ofideas place their ideas in the public. Once engaged in exchange, control isminimized, if not lost. If an author exchanges even one text, it can cross theglobe and reach thousands of people within the space of a few hours. Frompersonal experience I know that the scope of readership of even the most basicof papers is expanded over what is true for traditional print. Additionally,it is much easier for readers to begin a conversation with the author. Throughe-mail an author is easy to contact. If someone feels proprietary about theirwork, the loss of control would signal a significant loss in revenue. Theoriginator of a paper has no control over who receives it or how many peoplereceive it. Authors would probably survive the loss of distribution control, after allthey have very little control over distribution in the present system.However, what authors do have a larger share of control over under traditionalcopyright is authentication and reward. Over the internet authentication isvirtually impossible. Anyone can alter texts, change authorship, orappropriate the ideas without the initiating author knowing. In the case ofdiscussions, the texts can mingle until it is difficult to know who said what.The brackets designed to differentiate new text from the old lose meaning afterthree or four exchanges. What is more, it is easier to get lost in thedialogue than to worry about who is saying what. While technology that provides for authentication will soon be widespread, thepossibilities today include the out of control, communal exchange ofinformation. Some groups analogize authentication to putting street lights upin cyberspace to make it "safe" for business people. Such arguments illustratehow uncritically we accept privatization of a common ground in order forprivate business to prosper. Making cyberspace secure means making it easy totrack, authenticate information in order to reward the owner. Currently, nosystem exists which provides the originator of an idea with monetary reward.Conversely, there is no system through which to track infringement ofcopyright, but expect them to be available shortly. (By system I mean computerprogram that tracks and assigns rewards and punishments.) As a document moves across the internet, the infringer becomes virtuallyimpossible to track. New technology is being developed which could chargeusers with fees for reading information or using programs via the internet. Insuch a system everything would be commodified and owned. The national writersunion endorses some sort of system which would reward authors via the internet. They say that freedom of the press only applies to those who own one. And aspresses have become more and more expensive, publishing has been concentratedinto fewer and fewer hands. With the new information technologies we have theopportunity to reverse that historical trend. The technology exists for thenew electronic marketplaces to be implemented so that individual authors, smallpresses, and writer co-ops can publish on the network, and have their paymentsand royalties electronically collected and transferred to them, without theirhaving to invest in equipment beyond their financial means or pay prohibitiveusage and carrier fees.[39] The National Writers Union attempts to strike a balance between exchange andsovereignty which respects individual authors (and not the major publishinghouses) while keeping information as accessible to everyone as possible. Whilethey view cyberspace as a marketplace, their argument offers a balance missingfrom the publishing companies call for strict enforcement of intellectualproperty rights. Given the current discourse on intellectual property, the loss of control, andthe inability to authenticate and reward authors, exchange via the internet ismet with fear, hostility, and a sense of crisis by those advocating atraditional copyright story. Bruce L. Flanders perhaps describes the crisisview best in his article appropriately entitled "Barbarians at the Gate." Hestates, What we have is a classic example of the "loss of identifiable boundaries ofworks on which copyright has relied to distinguish 'yours' from 'mine.'" Inthis informal and often unpredictable intellectual collaboration, authorship isfrequently unrecorded. One of the goals of the soon-to-be-realized NationalResearch and Education Network (NREN) is the implementation of ultra high-speedtelecommunications to make it easier for immense quantities of data to travelrapidly between users. This will only exacerbate the copyright problem. What I would see as a positive step forwards, Flanders sees as a significantand horrifying threat. I would like to turn around the assumption that losingthe boundaries between "mine" and "thine" is a negative possibility. Electronic media challenges everything about publishing and authorship fromselection to ownership to distribution. Via the internet anyone with a story,poem, book, or biography can find an audience. Each individual becomesresponsible for screening what he/she will read. For example, the "GutenburgProject" makes the classics (which are in the public domain) available foranyone who has access to the internet and can ftp to the Gutenburg site. Tomorrow, however, desktop publishing and the electronic marketplace willeliminate the need for typesetting, printing, binding, trucking, warehousing,shelf-stocking, and inventory maintenance. If electronic distribution isimplemented to allow individual authors, or small writer co-ops, access to theworld electronic marketplace, what then is the need or purpose of publishers? I would suggest there is no future for publishers as we understand the termtoday. Decentering control over exchange of information will move in two directions.It will make it easier for everyone to participate in the exchange of ideas.It will also make the accumulation of knowledge into the hands of newelectronic information brokers possible. Lexis is a perfect example. Itcharges high prices to access its data base which consists largely of publicdomain material (court decisions etc.). However, because they add indexes,headers, and footers, these documents become proprietary. Additionally, theability to search vast amounts of information quickly and easily means thosewho can afford to use lexis have an advantage over those who must go to the lawlibrary and do the research themselves. Thus, while at the local level,individuals may become increasingly involved in exchanging their ideas onself-made publications, the information elite are adding value to informationin the public domain, making it proprietary, and forming a monopoly over databased information. Throughout this dissertation the metaphor of sovereignty versus exchange hasbeen used to highlight to politics of copyright. Inherent in this language,and hinted to throughout, is a spatialization dynamic which must be addressed.The sovereignty function is a boundary function, exchange delimits boundaries.Much of what occurs in copyright as it relates to technology is directlyrelated to ensuring sovereign boundaries remain intact. The Statute of Anne provided 14 years of protection for copyrighted works witha possible renewal term of another 14 years. Since that time, the years ofprotection granted have increased each time the law was revised. In the UnitedStates, the term was extended to 28 years in 1831. In 1909 the renewal termwas extended to a maximum of 56 years. Finally, in 1976 the term was extendedto the life of the author plus 50 years.[43] The extension of protection dates is illustrative ofsovereignty practices in the face of increasing challenges due to exchange.Threats to sovereign boundaries are addressed by increasing the number of yearsa work is protected. The rationality of this approach must be questioned. Forexample, new software is developed almost every 18 months, yet protection lastsalmost 100 years. Traditional sovereignty tactics are not helpful inmaintaining control in an electronic environment. As we move into a periodwhere information can escape control much more easily, this type of practicebecomes obsolete. Other extensions of copyright such as including the right to publicperformance and shrinking the fair use doctrine are also boundary practicesdiscussed in Chapter Three. These practices are more to the point, but stillattempt to control copyrighted works within a physical domain. Becausecopyright is envisioned as territory, control is exerted via territorialpractices. As these territorial practices work dysfunctionally stronger oneswill emerge in an attempt to exert control. The problem, however, rests in thetypes of controls exerted. From the perspective of internet exchange, a different notion of sovereigntyexists. This sovereignty has little to do with commercial control. At best,it describes a level of authorial recognition in on-going discussions.Information on the internet is always in a state of movement. It moves acrossinternational boundaries as easily as across the United States. Groupsattempting to assert proprietary control over work already on the internet arefighting a losing battle. Information can be everywhere at once, it isimpossible to know where it resides, who has it, who is exchanging it. Thesovereignty maintenance techniques of the print dominated age will not functionon the internet except through excessive force. If copyright is used as aclub, then possible exchange can be hindered. However, if the internet andelectronic communication is to prevail, then new sovereignty tactics must bedeveloped. Of course, all of these will rest upon bringing the internet intothe visible world of space. Exchange and copyright on the internet is as mucha battle over defining space as it is over controlling copyright. This chapter helps bring together many of the critiques which have developedthroughout the dissertation. The copyright story is a powerful one and thetenants emerging from recent developments are chilling. In the next chapter, Iwish to focus on some of the possibilities. There are three aspects ofauthorship and electronic communication I will discuss in the next chapter.First, the transfer of emphasis from the author to the dialogue. Second, themanner in which collective authorship can transform the subject. Third, thedemocratization of authorship. These are bits and pieces of possibilities thatsometimes flow in opposite directions. I am concerned with outlining a varietyof possibilities available once authorship is unhinged from commodification andthe print industry. This does not mean they are compatible possibilities. These possibilities can be mixed together with possible alternativefutures. It is time to move the dialogue away from the assumption thatproprietary control is the only and best method to organize this new resource.While the traditional copyright story is quite well accepted and strong, it isalso fractured and intersected by a variety of other possibilities. I wouldlike to look at some of these possibilities and alternatives in the nextchapter.