Code 2.0

is an important safety valve that ensures that the benefit to individual authors does not outweigh the benefit to the public'; Marlin H. Smith ('The Limits of Copyright: Property, Parody, and the Public Domain,' Duke Law Journal 42 [1993]: 1233, 1272) asserts that 'copyright law is better understood as that of a gatekeeper, controlling access to copyrighted works but guaranteeing, via fair use, some measure of availability to the public.'

53.

Stefik, 'Letting Loose the Light,' 244. For an excellent use of the general analysis of Code to argue that the specific analysis of this chapter is mistaken, see John Tehranian, 'All Rights Reserved? Reassessing Copyright and Patent Enforcement in the Digital Age,' University of Cincinnati Law Review 72 (2003): 45.

54.

Efficient here both in the sense of cheap to track and in the sense of cheap to then dis criminate in pricing; William W. Fisher III, 'Property and Contract on the Internet,' ChicagoKent Law Review 74 (1998).

55.

Julie E. Cohen, 'A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at `Copyright Man agement' in Cyberspace,' Connecticut Law Review 28 (1996): Reading anonymously is 'so intimately connected with speech and freedom of thought that the First Amendment should be understood to guarantee such a right' (981, 982). Cohen has extended her analysis in the context of technology that didn't gather private information. See Julie E. Cohen, 'DRM and Privacy,' Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18 (2003): 575. See also Helen Nissenbaum, 'Securing Trust Online: Wisdom or Oxymoron,' Boston University Law Review 81 (2001): 635 (describing the dynamic of trust emerging systems will evoke). For related, and powerful work, see Sonia K. Katyal, 'The New Surveillance,' Case Western Reserve Law Review 54 (2003): 297.

56.

'The freedom to read anonymously is just as much a part of our tradition, and the choice of reading materials just as expressive of identity, as the decision to use or withhold one's name' (Cohen, 'A Right to Read Anonymously,' 1012).

57.

See Olmstead v. United States 277 US 438, 474 (1928) (Justice Louis Brandeis dissent ing: 'Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?').

58.

See Jessica Litman, 'The Exclusive Right to Read,' Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 13 (1994): 29.

59.

See Dan Hunter and F. Gregory Lastowka, 'Amateur-to-Amateur,' William and Mary Law Review 46 (December 2004): 951, 1026–27.

60.

Lasica, Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation 18. ('The director of MIT's Comparative Media Studies Program and author of nine books on popular culture, [Henry] Jenkins says that from an early age, children reimagine what you can do with characters and settings from movies and TV. They play video games that permit control over a character within limited boundaries. Newer games allow an even broader range of interactivity and behaviors. When they get online, they can share stories, and children as young as seven are posting to fan fiction sites with simple but interesting stories about Harry Potter and Pokemon.')

61.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, 'Remote Control: The Rise of Electronic Cultural Policy,' Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597, 1 (January 1, 2005): 126.

62.

Lasica, Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation , 78, quoting Ernest Miller.

63.

From DJ Danger Mouse Web 2.0 Conference presentation 'Music Is a Platform,' Octo ber 6, 2004, quoted in Lasica, Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation, 211.

64.

See, for example, anime music videos, available at http://www.animemusicvideos.org/home/home.php (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6iY6CBz).

65.

Peter Huber relies explicitly on the high costs of control in his rebuttal to Orwell's