James Boyle

“The precursor of copyright law served to force the identification of the author so that he could be punished if he proved to be a heretic or a revolutionary”

“The history of patents includes a wealth of attempts to reward friends of the government and restrict or control dangerous technologies.”

“At the moment, everyone gets a copyright as soon as the work is written down or otherwise fixed, whether they want one or not.”

“Given an area of law that legislators were happy to hand over to the affected industries and a technology that was both unfamiliar and threatening, the prospects for legislative insight were poor. Lawmakers were assured by lobbyistsa) that this was business as usual, that no dramatic changes were being made by the Green or White papers; orb) that the technology presented a terrible menace to the American cultural industries, but that prompt and statesmanlike action would save the day; orc) that layers of new property rights, new private enforcers of those rights, and technological control and surveillance measures were all needed in order to benefit consumers, who would now be able to “purchase culture by the sip rather than by the glass” in a pervasively monitored digital environment.In practice, somewhat confusingly, these three arguments would often be combined. Legislators’ statements seemed to suggest that this was a routine Armageddon in which firm, decisive statesmanship was needed to preserve the digital status quo in a profoundly transformative and proconsumer way. Reading the congressional debates was likely to give one conceptual whiplash.To make things worse, the press was—in 1995, at least—clueless about these issues. It was not that the newspapers were ignoring the Internet. They were paying attention—obsessive attention in some cases. But as far as the mainstream press was concerned, the story line on the Internet was sex: pornography, online predation, more pornography. The lowbrow press stopped there. To be fair, the highbrow press was also interested in Internet legal issues (the regulation of pornography, the regulation of online predation) and constitutional questions (the First Amendment protection of Internet pornography). Reporters were also asking questions about the social effect of the network (including, among other things, the threats posed by pornography and online predators).”