Software and shovels: How the intellectual property revolution is undermining traditional concepts of property

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 143-182

  O'Melinn, Liam Séamus ^a  

^a OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38949087483     PISSN: 00096881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (168)

1. Brian Briggs & Christa Morse, Sony Unveils New Self-Destructive DVD Player (May 29, 2003), http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/05/self_destruct.html.
2. BBSpot.com is a satirical website creating entertainment "for the geekier side of the world." http://www.bbspot.com/Legal/about.html.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. For an examination of an earlier stage in the revolution, with a focus on the conflict between proprietary software rights and First Amendment rights, see Liam Séamus O'Melinn, The New Software Jurisprudence and the Faltering First Amendment, 6 VAND. J. ENT. L. & PRAC 310 (2004).
7. 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
8. 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).
9. 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
10. 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
11. "Lockean" is used here with a certain skepticism, describing as it does a natural-rights justification for intellectual property that Locke himself does not seem to have shared. As used in the present, the word signifies a belief that a person earns a private-property entitlement on the basis of the investment of labor. The Lockean explanation of intellectual property represents a dubious attempt to justify a modern theory on the basis of an antique authority, thus removing Locke from his historical context and making him speak for things that he probably did not believe. Nonetheless, the designation is a common one that is not going to disappear soon, and its insistent appearance as a justification for patent and copyright indicates its strength as a rhetorical device.
12. Randal C. Picker, From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 281, 283 (2002).
13. See id.;
14. Glen O. Robinson, Personal Property Servitudes, 71 U. CHI. L. REV. 1449 (2004). Robinson admits to being ambivalent about the extent to which servitudes on personal property should be enforceable,
15. see id. at 1521, but the overall tendency of his argument is that the law should remain open to the idea that they should be enforceable.
16. I assert this confidently based on responses given by my students to the shovel analogy.
17. See e.g., James Boyle, The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 33 (2003);
18. Lawrence Lessig, The Architecture of Innovation, 51 DUKE L.J. 1783 (2002);
19. Eben Moglen, Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary-Culture, 56 ME. L. REV. 1 (2004).
20. See, e.g., WILLIAM M. LANDES & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003);
21. Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 TEX. L. REV. 1035 (2005). Lemley expressed the view referred to here as moderator of a panel at the January 2006 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). For an account and analysis of the panel,
22. see Posting of Mark Fenster to PrawfsBlawg, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/ prawfsblawg/2006/01/cultural_proper.html (Jan. 12, 2006, 10:08 PM); Posting of Michael Madison to Madisonian.net, http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/01/ (Jan. 13, 2006).
23. See, e.g., MICHAEL F. BROWN, WHO OWNS NATIVE CULTURE? (2003);
24. SUSAN SCAFIDI, WHO OWNS CULTURE? APPROPRIATION AND AUTHENTICITY IN AMERICAN LAW (2005).
25. Richard A. Epstein, Liberty Versus Property? Cracks in the Foundations of Copyright Law, 42 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 1 (2005).
26. Adam Mossoff, Is Copyright Property?, 42 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 29, 42 (2004).
27. Michael J. Madison, Law as Design: Objects, Concepts, and Digital Things, 56 CASE W. RES. L. Rev 381 (2005).
28. See generally Picker, supra note 11;
29. Robinson, supra note 12.
30. Locke's explanation of the origin of property rights is presented as the first justification in each of the three following educational books by prominent scholars: ROBERT P. MERGES & JANE C. GINSBURG, FOUNDATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (2005);
31. MARSHALL A. LEAFFER, UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT LAW (2005);
32. ROBERT P. MERGES, PETER S. MENELL & MARK A. LEMLEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE (3d ed. 2003).
33. MARK ROSE, AUTHORS AND OWNERS: THE INVENTION OF COPYRIGHT 33 (1993)
34. (reprinting a letter from John Locke to Edward Clark). See also RONAN DEAZLY, ON THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHT TO COPY 3-4 (2004).
35. ROSE, supra note 22, at 33.
36. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL, SEVEN LECTURES ON THE LAW AND HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT IN BOOKS 51 (1899).
37. Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees at n. 32, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000) (Nos. 00-16401, 00-16403).
38. Id.
39. BIRRELL, supra note 24, at 51-64.
40. See BIRRELL, supra note 24, at 74-75.
41. See id.
42. Id.
43. Id. at 90.
44. See BIRRELL, supra note 24, at 91.
45. See ROSE, supra note 22, at 35-36.
46. See id.
47. See DEAZLEY, supra note 22, at 46.
48. See BIRRELL, supra note 24, at 94-95.
49. See id. at 99-138.
50. See id.
51. See ROSE, supra note 22, at 35-36.
52. 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B. 1769).
53. 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (H.L. 1774).
54. See ROSE, supra note 22, at 99-101.
55. BENJAMIN KAPLAN, AN UNHURRIED VIEW OF COPYRIGHT (AND WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FRIENDS) 6 (Iris C. Geik et al. eds., 2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Donaldson v. Becket, 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (H.L. 1774)).
56. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 7. "The Congress shall have Power . . .; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
57. Id.
58. See Adam Mossoff, Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents? Reevaluating the Patent "Privilege" in Historical Context, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 953, 973-85 (2007).
59. THE FEDERALIST NO. 43 (James Madison).
60. See Justin Hughes, Copyright and Incomplete Historiographies: Of Piracy, Propertization, and Thomas Jefferson, 79 S. CAL. L. REV. 993, 1021-26 (2006);
61. see Mossoff, supra note 45, at 967-85.
62. Hughes, supra note 47, at 1021-26;
63. see Mossoff, supra note 45.
64. 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 509-10 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
65. THE FEDERALIST NO. 43, supra note 46.
66. See infra Sections III and IV.
67. See infra Section IV.
68. See BIRRELL, supra note 24, at 141.
69. 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834).
70. See id. at 655.
71. Id. at 661.
72. I refer here to federal law and leave aside for the moment any discussion of state common law copyright or of the contentious question of the relationship between state and federal law.
73. See generally Resolution of the Continental Congress Respecting Copyright (1783), http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/copyrights/ Resolution%20of%20the%20Continental%20Congress%20Respecting%20Copyright.pdf (last visited Sept. 9, 2007);
74. Copyright Laws Passed by the Original States (1783-1786), http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/copyrights/ Copyright%20Laws%20Passed%20by%20the%20Original%20States,%20_1783-1786.pdf (last visited Sept. 9, 2007).
75. See Copyright Laws Passed by the Original States, supra note 58.
76. Id.
77. The committee wrote, "[N]othing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study." WILLIAM F. PATRY, COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE 19 (1994) (quoting 24 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 1774-1789, at 326 (1783)).
78. THE FEDERALIST No. 43, supra note 46.
79. See PATRY, supra note 61.
80. James Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, Madison's " DetatchedMemoranda," 3 WM. & MARY Q. 534, 551 (1946) (emphasis added).
81. See generally David Ladd, The Harm of the Concept of Harm in Copyright, 30 J. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y OF THE U.S.A., 421 (1983).
82. Id. at 426.
83. William S. Strauss, The Damage Provisions of the Copyright Law, in 2 STUDIES ON COPYRIGHT 997-99 (Copyright Soc'y of the U.S.A. ed. 1963).
84. No. 06-CV-1497, 2007 WL 2957532 (D. Minn. Oct. 4, 2007) (jury's answers on special verdict form) (case was formerly captioned Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Thomas).
85. 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).
86. No. 06-CV-1497, 2007 WL 2957532 (jury's answers on special verdict form).
87. 430 F.3d at 891-92.
88. Id. at 890-91 (emphasis added).
89. Id.
90. Ladd, supra note 65, at 425.
91. Id.
92. Id. at 426 (quoting statement by Professor Nathaniel Shaler, presented by Register of Copyrights Theodore Solberg to Congress in 1936) (emphasis added).
93. Id. at 427 (quoting Barbara Ringer, The Demonology of Copyright, R.R. Bowker, 19 (Oct. 24, 1974)).
94. Id.
95. Id.
96. Id. at 428.
97. Id. at 429.
98. Id. at 430 (emphasis added).
99. See, e.g., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 545-46 (1985). "[W]e believe the Second Circuit gave insufficient deference to the scheme established by the Copyright Act for fostering the original works that provide the seed and substance of this harvest. The rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors."
100. Id.
101. Id.
102. Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees, supra note 25, at n.32
103. KAPLAN, supra note 43, at 6.
104. Id. at 99.
105. See 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
106. Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1910 (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 110(2), 112(f), 802 (2006)).
107. Grant Gross, RIAA Cheers College Music Deals, PC WORLD, Aug. 25, 2004, available at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid, 117545,00.asp.
108. Id. (emphasis added).
109. Id.
110. Canada Endorsing Monsanto "Suicide Seeds," GREENPEACE INT'L, Feb. 9, 2005, http://www.greenpeace.org/ international/news/suicide-seeds.
111. See generally J. Alex Halderman & Edward W. Felten, Lessons From the Sony CD DRM Episode (Feb. 14, 2006), http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/pub/ sonydrm-ext.pdf.
112. See e.g., Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
113. See Randal C. Picker, Copyright and the DMCA: Market Locks and Technological Contracts, in ANTITRUST, PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT: EU AND US PERSPECTIVES 180, 186 (François Lévêque & Howard Shelanski eds., 2005).
114. See id. at 180-81.
115. See Madison, supra note 19, at 397.
116. Id. at 400;
117. see also Stots Corporation FAQ, http://www.stots.com/faqs.htm (last visited Sept. 11, 2007).
118. 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
119. Picker, supra note 96, at 187.
120. Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005), available at http://judiciary.house. gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=505 (statement of Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America).
121. See Play It Cyber Safe, http://www.playitcybersafe.com/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2007).
122. See Cyber Tree House, http://cybertreehouse.com (follow "Videos" hyperlink) (last visited Aug. 21, 2007).
123. See also Play It Cyber Safe: Tools for Kids, http://www. playitcybersafe.com/kids/tools/index.cfm (last visited Aug. 21, 2007).
124. Blowing Your Rights: Paying to Have Yourself Beaten Up, http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/rights.htm (last visited Aug. 21, 2007).
125. See Digital Film: Industry Answers, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/ entertainment/4691232.stm#7 (last visited Aug. 21, 2007) (quoting Dan Glickman).
126. See JESSICA LITMAN, DIGITAL COPYRIGHT 111 (2001).
127. 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
128. Id. at 636.
129. Id. at 634, 642.
130. Id. at 635.
131. Id. at 638-42.
132. I thank Michael Michetti for the analogy.
133. Davidson, 422 F.3d at 632, 637.
134. W. at 638-42.
135. See Battle.net, www.bnetd.org (last visited Sept. 12, 2007).
136. Cf. Davidson, 422 F.3d at 637. The court did make oblique references to allegations of trademark and copyright infringement that were settled at trial.
137. See id. These appear to have arisen in conjunction with the online environment rather than in connection with copying the Blizzard game.
138. See id.
139. See Picker, supra note 96, at 186.
140. 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
141. 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed Cir. 2004).
142. 273 F.3d at 459-60.
143. See id. at 459. One of the designers of deCSS, a Norwegian teen named Jon Johansen, insisted that his use of deCSS was to play lawfully purchased DVDs on a Linux operating system.
144. Id. at 437. He argued that he was maintaining a computer with a Windows operating system for the sole purpose of playing DVDs, and that this was a wasteful use of a computer.
145. Id. at 444. For a much more detailed analysis of this case and the entire deCSS controversy,
146. see generally O'Melinn, supra note 5, at 311.
147. See O'Melinn, supra note 5, at 315-16.
148. See id. at 324.
149. See id.
150. See id. n.161.
151. 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
152. Id. at 1183.
153. See id.
154. Id.
155. Id. at 1182.
156. Id. at 1192-93.
157. See W. at 1186-87.
158. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 452-54: Burglars can use skeleton keys to open door locks. . . . In its basic function, CSS is like a lock on a homeowner's door, a combination of a safe, or a security device attached to a store's products. DeCSS is computer code that can decrypt CSS. In its basic function, it is like a skeleton key that can open a locked door, a combination that can open a safe, or a device that can neutralize the security device attached to a store's products. . . . . . . . . . . This type of regulation is therefore content-neutral, just as would be a restriction on trafficking in skeleton keys identified because of their capacity to unlock jail cells . . . .
159. Id.
160. Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 207 (1996).
161. LYNN WHITE, JR., MEDIEVAL TECHNOLOGY & SOCIAL CHANGE 1-38 (1962).
162. Id. at 1, 28-31.
163. Id. at 1-2.
164. Id. at 29.
165. Id. at 28-31, 38.
166. Id. at 31. White explains: The members of the feudal class held their lands and enjoyed their status by reason of loyalty in regard to their obligation of knight's service. Gradually the concept was broadened to include other "aids," notably assisting at the court of one's liege lord. But the original and basic knight's service was mounted shock combat.
167. Id.
168. JOHN LOCKE, THE SECOND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT, Ch. V (Prometheus Books 1986) (1690) (emphasis added).