Much has been written about intellectual property. Several people have landed in jail because of its implementation. Nowadays, the principles of copyright are once again very actual in current discourse. The growing economical importance of the Internet and digital media is one of the main reasons.
Some people are completely against copyright, some are speaking out for even stricter countermeasures against infringements. As a mixed-media artist, I’ve found that not many of my colleagues have outspoken ideas on this subject. Which is strange, considering it is of prime importance to the discipline. There is, so I’ve noticed, a lack of understanding on what the intellectual property laws should do exactly, and for whom they are meant.
I feel that my perspective and explanations can deliver something different from that which has been said by non-artistic sources, and that is why I have written this article.
As an artist, one is more confronted with the implications the current copyright policies have. For me personally it has been the inspiration for works of art or, in this case, an article. My work as an artist often touches on the subject of rights and intellectual property, and has involved copyright and digital media as an integral part of it on several occasions. Media and its multiplicity have fascinated me for a long time. This fascination ranges from radio signals to painting and from computer programs to musical compositions.
If you are a creative professional, be it musician or painter, you can use the intellectual property you have to make money. But it is a misconception that you have the right to contain, and therefor hurt culture in doing so.
As we have seen in recent years, many small artists are now able to reach a global market through the Internet. And with that, they are often able to create a revenue previously considered impossible. No more strangling contracts for starting artists, no more need for a record label or gallery. For the smaller artists at least, the Internet means freedom.
Information technology continues to grow in its importance in everyday life. The intellectual property laws are here to protect the artist, and that makes sense. But the way society is changing, and the position the artist takes in this will define how many of the freedom that the Internet provides will survive. In this article I will try to explain my views on the role of the artist and his intellectual property in the age of the Internet.
I hope you enjoy reading this article, I’m always interested in comments and discussion.
November 28, 2007
Copyright is a relatively new concept.1 It is only about 300 years old. It is true that in earlier times works have been directly accredited to their makers. Often this was more for of the fame the master held and the increased economical value of the work than an ode to its qualities. A painting by certain old masters was then, what an expensive car is today. The master taking the honor for a painting for which he only painted the faces of the depicted was quite a common practice. The master painted signature parts, and the rest of the painting was done by pupils, learning the trade as they worked. Learning about art, one must remark it wasn’t all aesthetics that ruled the arts back then. The artist solely took credit for a venture that was not his alone. There were more people involved of which only a very limited few made it into the history books, and very few reaped the benefits.
Catholic Relics also have been of questionable originality for some time. For instance, if one were to take all the pieces of wood that ought to have belonged to Jesus’ cross, one would probably end up with a small forest.2 This is no elaborate secret in the church. Relics consolidate belief. Belief is important for the church. There is no way all those relics can be real. And most people don’t really care, since it doesn’t hurt belief or culture. On the contrary; it adds to, and expands on it.
Another example are the early Renaissance painters. They were praised for their extraordinary grasp of light and space. But several of these artists used a Camera Obscura to create their paintings. One of the indications is that they quite suddenly turned from mediocre realism to almost perfect photographic accuracy in their paintings. The Camera Obscura would quite easily explain the change from a painter’s perspective to that of a photographer’s.3 When looking through such a camera, it tends to change the way you look at things. You are less concerned with the location, and more with the composition of things. The Renaissance painters would have had time to create the composition first, then wait for the light, and capture it at exactly the right moment. The difficulty is no longer in the translation to the canvas. To some people, this conclusion conflicts directly with their idea of originality for that historical period, and so they feel somewhat betrayed. As if the paintings of Vermeer were suddenly discovered to be some sort of hoax. That is of course not so. These are still very original paintings.
What I am trying to point out here is that the originality of things, even in the most respected art, is not always as pure as it may seem. Discovering a new technology is for the unknowing onlooker as if the artist was suddenly gifted with a supernatural talent, and copying is a much more common practice as some of us might like to believe.
Creativity and culture
When I speak about culture, I use the word in its following meaning:
cul•ture The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.4
Creativity is, like almost everything we do, dependent on culture. It is even so dependent on it, that without culture it would not exist in its current sophisticated form. Creativity is a process that feeds on the artist’s surroundings. There is no true, no new creativity when not originating from a culture. This dependence of creativity on culture shows us some things about its nature. First of all, we are all influenced by the culture around us. For instance, if the consensus is to think of the color red as ‘evil’, there will be a very distinct difference in cultural expression to those of a culture indifferent to it. Even when the concept’s underlying ideologies have long since gone, the heritage of generations of ‘evil red’ symbolism will influence current and future expressions. Culture cannot exist without all those people doing their things the way they and their ancestors have done them for years and years.
Secondly, there is no real creativity without a culture to nurture it. Culture prevents people from having to re-invent the wheel, but it also steers them very clearly in a certain direction. So the question stands: Is there true creativity when it is based on such a dominant thing as culture?
It is nonsense to perceive your own idea as pure. It is unrealistic to present your idea as a thing only you could have thought of. Take the example of the telephone. The only reason we remember Alexander Bell is because he had the money to pay the 10 dollar fee to the patent-institution. There was no doubt that the idea of Antonio Meucci, the other inventor, was original. The ideas were both original.5 They were both creative, a direct product of the collaborative culture. If you think about it, it would be kind of stupid of nature to put all her evolutionary eggs in one basket. We would be long dead, or not even have existed if nature was as unpractical as that. Our whole biological presence is based on the adaptation and expansion of tested functionality. Our brains work just like that, because nature works just like that. There are many ways to an idea. But most important of all; There are many versions of the same idea. We are not that different at all. The ancient question forever remains: Is there an original? Is there originality, so how then can we claim copyright? Seen like this, everything is already a derivative work of the conceptual and perfect thing in our minds.
I have explained that creative expression is the product of a culture. A product not originating from the brain of only one person, but rather from all people contributing to the culture. I don’t claim there are no gifted people or brilliant minds. I only wish to point out that there are other forces at work besides the romanticized ideal of the lone artist. When an artist creates things, he uses elements from the past, present and his surroundings. These things are all deeply rooted in the culture the artist comes from or resides in. That which the artist makes is new, yet is compiled of only existing cultural elements.
But how can something be created by the artist and not be completely by him at the same time? It might help to think of the creative process as a pyramid. There is only one stone at the top, but that stone could not be there without all those other stones below, supporting it. The peak of the creative process of an artist is actually a very small part of the combined experiences of the artist. The artist is influenced by everything in daily life. Television, newspapers, the view from his window, and so on. These influences are the proverbial stones in the pyramid. There is no way artworks are possible without the thousands of years of war, revolution, enlightenment and experimentation before. The artist creates a new stone for others to use in a pyramid of their own, advancing the collaborative culture to a higher level.
As I said, no art without influence. An artist isn’t someone who makes completely ‘new’ things. Just like in science, the artist further develops and expands already known things.
The collective knowledge of the time can’t really be considered anyone’s property. We all use recycled ideas every day. The simplest examples are when you say aspirin and mean acetylsalicylic acid. It’s when you order a coke and get a Pepsi. This goes for brand-names but also goes for concepts of politics, philosophy and art. The view an average person has on such things nowadays is far more advanced than to the idea an average person had about the same subject two hundred years ago.
Business in culture
The main-stream music charts, museums, music stores, radio- and TV-stations all show only a very small part of the creative spectrum. There are exceptions; small distributors that sell niche expressions. That diversifies the market and certainly from a cultural standpoint, that is good. The larger players however –those with the greatest market share– are no fans of a diverse market. They need control over the habits of their customers, and thus the idea is that a specific kind of product is the goal. The fact that an artist creates for himself is abandoned and exchanged for a different idea. The idea to create culturally fitting music. Music that sounds like stuff you know, and thus creates a guaranteed revenue. The self-perpetuating system is most obvious in the music industry. For a long time now, record-labels have openly sponsored the charts and had them based on their sales. These charts then rule airplay on the majority of radio- and TV-stations. Repetition and exposure create cultural association. Cultural association creates need. Need, as we all know, creates sales.
These industries will push a record or artist regardless of the fact there might be a more creative or better version out there. It is the control of revenue that matters. Let no one ever tell you the music industry isn’t in it for the money.
Looking at the dictionary’s definition of creativity we see:
“The ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.” 6
The first thing we notice is that nowhere is stated that creativity should function within a constrained framework. Exactly the opposite is the case. It declares creativity to be something that transcends tradition and current practice. As you can imagine, building a business model around a product which continuously changes shape is very hard. Creative expression is such a product. The way the music- and movie-industry have chosen to control this expression is to stagnate the form it has, transforming it into a craft. They do this, first of all, by very actively enforcing copyright. Unfortunately, in our world, a well payed, skilled group of lawyers rarely loses case against a single individual. In the end it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. Whoever has the longest breath –and the most money– usually wins. This fear-mongering is already enough to keep most people away from the industry’s turf. Secondly, the industry makes the containment of creative expression easier by implementing a tightly controlled promotional system for its product. They have much more money and resources available than the average individual to keep such a system running. So now we have a tight framework of do’s and don’ts defined by public taste, which in turn is defined by the industry’s sales goals. They exert almost total control over display, popularity, promotion, sales and pricing.
Would this be any other industry, cartel would be the right word.
The larger, industrialized version of creativity and its controllers have left a lasting impression on the way we view copyright. I’ve noticed all around me that people don’t see intellectual property as something they have themselves. It’s something reserved for those with the money to back it up. (This would make Thomas Jefferson and the enlightened thinkers turn around in their graves.) Intellectual property rights were conceived to facilitate cultural and scientific progress. Above all, they were of a limited nature, so society as a whole could benefit from it as well. The intellectual property rights weren’t thought up to have large undying corporations make money off them eternally.
The strange thing is, the current, corrupted version of the system got in place through the very channels created to empower creative individuals. Intellectual property rights were expanded under the banner of economic protection, economic equality and freedom of expression. Freedom of expression should mean something to the people, but instead turned them into a lazy, bored and apathetic group. This, of course, is nothing new. Whenever things go just fine, nobody cares about the system that keeps things going just so fine. People are usually afraid of change, even though that is essential to the development of our cultures.
Not many people in society consider themselves creative. People think of musicians and painters as creatives. Not they themselves; they who do normal work and lead normal lives. Go to normal bars and drink normal drinks. Typically, they see their lives as not being of influence on culture. The fact is that through their voting, buying and working a culture changes itself, and along with it the possibilities for creative expression. The people, however, seem to have no grasp of their role and responsibility to the advancement of culture. They seem not to think of themselves as actuators, but as passive members of society.
Current main-stream consists of high budget easy-listening smoothness that is as far away from true creative effort as is the Moon from the Earth. There is little cultural progression in maintaining the existing business model.
Money and creativity
People keep their secrets and make some money off them. They have every right to do that. But, as Lawrence Lessig puts it7, the whole of culture is undeniably influenced by their work, and so it would be unfair and unjust to let someone have the monopoly on an idea. When a concept is out there, a fresh view or added idea usually makes the original better. Prohibiting such development is hindering the progress of culture and human knowledge as a whole.
The world could achieve more through the spreading, adapting and changing of the idea. That’s why copyright should give only limited rights to its holder. It should not prevent others to create something new.
There are laws to creativity. That is not always for creativity’s sake, but has mostly to do with securing resources. Nowadays these laws are often used by clever lawyers to benefit those monetizing creativity. The copyright laws are today in place more for monetary solidity than for creative redemption. That might not have been the original idea for creating such laws, but that is what they are being used for today. As Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) puts it:
“Clearly, people will not do things for free. It defies human nature to paint a picture or do a statue and just give it away. There might be a few people like that, but they probably don’t eat very well.” 8
Clearly, he is not representing the creative part of society, but instead represents the people that have commercialized ideas and creativity into a product. He forgets that, initially, creativity is driven by the act of creating itself, not by monetary compensation. The mistake is made by many, and it’s strangely difficult to clarify the practice. The difference becomes however much clearer when we use the correct words. When we make the distinction between art and craft.
The products that are made for the market are works of craft. Craft is skillfully made and serves a practical purpose, like selling it. It is usually of high technical quality, and produced with a high level of expertise.
In contradiction to craft, works of art come into existence because the artist want to create them. It does not have a predefined use or value. The quality differs widely, and is sometimes not even considered important to the work of art. Although you can –of course– sell your art, it can intrinsically not be conceived as a product.
Of course you can’t actually measure the value of a creative work. The music industry and movie industry will publicly spin this story as well. But in the courtrooms, there is a constant quantification of such products to indicate damages and losses. It’s the constructed image of smiles and freedom on one side, and the everyday reality of greed and destruction of lives on the other. A highly hypocritical practice, and one that has to stop before it has lasting impact on the quality of our creative culture.
Artists need all the stuff around them to create. I have yet to hear a single artist who has benefited from tightening copyright laws in creating a work. Maybe for some the frustration originating from it can be used as inspiration. Mostly however, creatives are confronted with direct practical hindrances.
The first thing that comes to mind are genres of music that use samples in it. Music like Hip-hop, where snippets of audio from songs, soundtracks, speeches and such are used. There are many artists who make up the entirety of their music out of sampled material. DJ Shadow is a prime example of this.9 His music consists completely of beats, grooves and samples that were originally created by other artists. It was lifted from the original vinyl record and re-arranged. Even though it was created from copies, this does not make the music a copy itself.
There is an enormous hindering force on the progression of the arts exerted by the very laws that are –in concept– designed to protect them. There is no reason to believe the current implementation of these laws are beneficial to the culture. They are beneficial to the monopoly one business has on an idea. That’s not the same as allowing for fair use, and it is not fair towards society. For example, in the United States, some copyright holders now have the legal power to deprive everybody in society of their financial resources in a single day.10 That is a totalitarian nightmare scenario that nobody can seriously approve of.
If the music industry would exercise all their current intellectual property rights, they would have no customers left. The industry strives to make money by the arts, but diminish their chances for income through the control they exert over the arts. How paradoxical is that?
The goal of business’ creativity is not a more versatile creative culture, but a smaller, less faceted one. A culture that is easier to control. One where the borders are clear and the business model is secure. This culture was already being perfected in the days of the vinyl record. For example, small bands with no record deal had a very hard time gaining publicity.
Since the rise of the Internet however, things have changed. Moving data around has never been easier. That’s good news for all the small artists out there. It means a greater exposure of their creative works. It also means the movie- and music-industry have to make changes to their business models. They need to step into the alternative markets and business models if they want a piece of the pie. The difference is that on the Internet, their previous job as middle man and distributor is almost obsolete, so their function changes drastically. Instead of adapting to the new way of selling creative expressions, most of the larger companies choose to cling to the system they know. They try to apply this system on a drastically different –and incompatible– medium, effectively draining the medium of its power.
The approach most businesses have chosen result in freedoms being taken away. Freedoms to make parodies, to play cover songs or to use samples. However you look at it, these actions are directly harming the collaborative creative culture.
Information is power
Most countries have now implemented laws on the sharing of copyrighted material. Usually there is a fine involved when one is discovered to share such material. Even though I understand that today infringement is illegal, I see no good in the invasive monitoring used by some governments. The comparison with real life is easily made; people are not happy about cavity searches for security, so why should they be so accepting when it comes to the digital equivalent? The frantic tries to contain infringement by punishment illustrate the great gap between the current law and what is everyday norm.11
Informing the user
The solution to this digital copyright-paranoia is not to remove freedom, but rather to raise awareness. Most of the people have no idea what they are doing wrong when they use their computer. Most of the users see no harm in downloading copyrighted works of the Internet. And in fact, purely by browsing the web, for instance, most copyright infringement isn’t even done on purpose. The way the World Wide Web functions means that copying of the information is done automatically and transparently. You can try to contain the Internet with the ancient laws of centuries ago, but why not accept it for what it is? It is, after all, a wonderful mechanism, with equally fascinating uses.
Of course this still doesn’t change a thing about the fact that most current implementations of the intellectual property laws are wrong. If you download a work using your computer, the artist himself is not deprived of his copy. It is copying without loss. Before the Internet, this was not possible on such scale. Most definitely, copying without loss was not at all possible back in the days the copyright laws were established. Just for that reason alone, many of these laws are incompatible with modern media.
So, raising awareness with users is one part of the solution. Showing people the ropes, explaining them what’s right and wrong. With a more informed body of users, and a revised set of intellectual property laws we would have more control over actual digital crime, more honesty and justice, and a better market for artists to make revenue in.
Informing the artist
The second part of the solution is the position the artist takes. Clearly there are forces at work that have not been taken into account when the copyright system was originally created. In all the years file sharing has been actual in politics, nothing really has changed when it comes to sharing. This is not strange since the nature of networking and the Internet is in fact such that sharing is fundamental to it. Contrary to what most artists believe, the rise of file-sharing has not diminished the sales of conventionally distributed music.12 On the contrary, it has even proved to help it.13
Many artists acknowledge the benefits of the Internet. It allows cheap and fast movement of information across vast distances, regardless of race, religion or country. It empowers artists of all kinds to display their works to a vast audience. With growing adoption of mobile devices, laptops and computers all across the world, it is the ultimate tool to reach that audience. As I’ve mentioned above, the Internet is open in its nature. It allows open communication to all kinds of hardware and people, and exactly therein lies its power. To force the rigid, closed system of copyright laws on a medium of this kind, would be to rob it of its meaning. If you use the Internet, all information you place on it will be free for all. If you place your music on-line, it’s for all the world to see. It reaches people, and as such, you influence the culture of these people. It would be ridiculous to force these people to ignore what they saw or heard. Just because the artist happens to hold the intellectual property, doesn’t mean he can stifle other’s creativity.
That is the position every artist should consider. Do you want to get tangled up in the corporate web of legal and moral conflicts? Do you wan to provide your work to this enormous audience? Why would you use this tool, if not for freedom of expression and influence?
What, free art?!
Consider the following: Current events, such as news and politics, influence or inspire artists. That makes them often the first to comment or criticize recent developments in politics, art and science. Artists have the need to express themselves freely, and because they often exercise that right a bit more than the average citizen, they are bound to feel adverse effects if there is limit on that. It’s not only that art is being commercialized into a product, and controlled through economic pressure, but the whole idea of creativity being able to transcend current culture is in danger. Art should not be controlled, but the current situation shows an unpleasant paradigm shift. Art has become something less valuable, something we can limit and control if it shows us things we do not like. This is censorship, and censorship is wrong. It takes away freedom, and institutionalizes the stifling power over creative expression.
As an artist one cannot believe in the merits of a system that limits the amount of people that view your work. The idea of art is to make it known, to express. One cannot express freely if there is some right violated when people see, hear or otherwise experience your work. Everyone, I believe, has the right to make a living from his or her work. But everybody also has a responsibility to society. Society inspires and catalyzes the creative process. Without society there would be no art.
So maybe it is time to give something back to the system you take so much from. Maybe it’s a good idea to give some art away for free. And the good thing is, it doesn’t even have to cost you anything at all. You even get to keep your own copy.
Although most top-selling craftsmen might not be in it for the joy of creating, most artists are happy to perform or exhibit if they don’t lose any money doing so. The artwork is exposed to more people, you meet new fellow artists, your fan-base grows, et-cetera. The positive effects on your life and the world around you are plentiful. It is your creation that is exposed to the world, and that influences people, or makes them think. Your art sends out a message, it strikes a chord. That is part of why you got into the business, isn’t it?
Artists should definitely think about giving something back. I am sure there are a lot of artists doing so already out there. In effect, you already share your art just by showing it. You give it to other people through the experience they have when they listen to your music, look at your painting. So why then would you want to impose an involuntary limit on your work? It’s against the nature of art to not allow people to experience it, regardless of the reason.
Don’t wait for the government
Instead of dropping rates of digital crime, along with the spreading of computer-use, the number has soared. Most government’s understanding of the matter is still lacking. Real digital criminals are far ahead of those chasing them. Allowing business to threaten consumers with badly-aimed punishments is not the way to make the real criminals go away. It’s scary how people passing the judgment have often no exact idea of what has been done wrong. Instead of competence, they use brute force.
It is not strange that most governments are so bad at coping with these new types of media. The Internet is a strange thing. It’s a giant machine spanning the whole world. Every country supplies it’s own part, but there are no borders. The Internet means information. Information is freedom. But if something is illegal in your country, it is not necessarily so in other countries. On the uncensored Internet, information is as easily available in Australia as it is in America or in Iran. But in the less enlightened parts of the world, there is now suddenly is a an army of criminals in the backyard, and not only the country’s own, but the whole world is in on it. Everybody attacks your country’s policy from all over the world. Your country’s laws are being broken by everybody. It all gets more and more complicated as the costs rise and the taxpayer’s money goes into futile lawsuits or paying foreign lawyers.
We need quality control on the government’s actions in this field, or else this will grow to a great problem as more of the infrastructure becomes dependent on digital machinery.
The Pirate Bay is a good example for this. Recently, they have become the favorite target of the American music and movie industry. Logically enough, the laws that apply to American citizens don’t apply to the Swedes that run The Pirate Bay. The attempts of American lawyers to vindicate these people are funny mostly, but frightening often enough. One of the instances where ‘funny’ was not applicable was when the servers employed by The Pirate Bay were physically removed from their location because of suspected copyright infringement. As violating and uninformed that may be in itself, the real kicker was when government officials removed all the servers from the hosting-company. They had no clue exactly which to take, so they just took them all. Along with it, they broke other peoples websites where they ran their businesses from.14 Were the government employing someone with even average knowledge of the field, they could easily pick one of many possible solutions that wouldn’t have destroyed parts of the Swedish economy. Of course under Swedish as well as American law no infringing content was found on their servers. The MPAA declared that they thought the action was a success.15 Since when is an intimidating, illegal and freedom-destroying action a success? Is destroying peoples businesses a success?
Another example. The Landesgericht Hamburg in Germany decided in 1998 that someone running a website is responsible for the links posted on it.16 That means if I were to comment your web-log with a link pointing to illegal content, you would be going to jail too. It is wrong on many levels; the personal freedom of speech for one, but also the sloppiness of the court in accidentally deciding their citizens should take the law in their own hands. Why not let law enforcement solve the problem? That’s what they’re here for.
We most definitely need quality control.
You need to get involved
As I have said, governments are not particularly the best institutions to control these dawning technologies. They are slow, bureaucratic and chronically understaffed on experts in the field. We as people in democratic countries are very much responsible for our government’s lack of competence. We, who vote for people that hold medieval beliefs, can’t really expect that those rulers can make a coherent and informed statement about new technologies, let alone construct laws for them.
The Internet is no threat, but the loss of freedoms we lose in the process of its legal integration is. Currently, across the world, lives are being destroyed and freedoms are taken away. If this continues, the very culture that is subject to the protection offered by these mechanisms is at risk. We must not step on that slippery slope. Our lives are dominated more and more by digital influences and information, so we will need to expand our rights and freedoms into the digital domain too. There will be changes necessary that eventually lead to a global vision of rights.
In most of the current Western world, the copyright law-system has grown so that the people with the longest financial breath decide what’s right and wrong, and that is very bad. The task is to make the situation equal for everybody, providing the best chance of progress for the entire culture, while retaining individual freedom and rights. It is complete nonsense to have to go back to the Dark Ages, only because some government consists of people who don’t know a floppy from a CD.
To replace those officials, that is our task as creatives too.
Mark Lindhout, February 2007
- Lessig L., 2001, Free Culture
- Doctorow C., 2004, Microsoft Research DRM Talk
- Russell C., 2001, Libraries in Today’s Digital Age: The Copyright Controversy
- League of Noble Peers, 2006, Film: Steal This Film
- Landesgericht Hamburg, 1998, Urteil vom 12. Mai 1998 – 312 O 85/98 – Haftung für Links
- Johnsen A., Christensen R., Moltke H. (direction), 2006, Film: Good Copy, Bad Copy
- Oberholzer F. & Strumpf K., 2004, The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales
- 1 Annæ Reginæ (The Statute of Anne), 1710, taken from: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html (July 12, 2007)
- 2 Dafoe S., The Relic Of The True Cross, http://www.templarhistory.com/cross.html (July 12, 2007)
- 3 Fiorentini E., 2006, Camera Obscura vs. Camera Lucida – Distinguishing Early Nineteenth Century Modes of Seeing
- 4 Random House Dictionary, 2009
- 5 House of Representatives (U.S.A.), 2001, The Meucci Bill – H. RES. 269 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention of the telephone.
- 6 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006, taken from: http://dictionary.com (August 25, 2007)
- 7 Lessig L., 2001, Free Culture
- 8 Johnsen A., Christensen R., Moltke H. (Film), 2006, Good Copy, Bad Copy
- 9 DJ Shadow, 1996, Endtroducing…, (Music Album)
- 10 Tehranian J., 2007, Infringement Nation: Copyright reform and the law/norm gap
- 11 Tehranian J., 2007, Infringement Nation: Copyright reform and the law/norm gap
- 12 Morphy E., 2004, Research: File-Sharing Not Killing CD Sales, taken from: http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=23577 (July 12, 2007)
- 13 Oberholzer F. and Strumpf K., 2004, The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales – An Empirical Analysis
- 14 Galistel A., JO’s investigation of the Pirate Bay raid is done, taken from: http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6020.html (July 12, 2007)
- 15 Swedish authorities sink Pirate Bay, 2006, taken from: http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_05_31.pdf (August 25, 2007)
- 16 Landesgericht Hamburg, 1998, Urteil vom 12. Mai 1998 – 312 O 85/98 – Haftung für Links