path: root/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst')
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index e720f9d..588da66 100644
--- a/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -487,7 +487,8 @@ We live in a world that celebrates "property." I am one of those celebrants. I b
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of value out there that "property" doesn't capture. I don't mean "money can't buy you love," but rather, value that is plainly part of a process of production, including commercial as well as noncommercial production. If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking as wrong - even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered "fair." There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
={ Disney, Walt +5 ;
Grimm fairy tales +1 ;
- Keaton, Buster }
+ Keaton, Buster
Thus, even though the things that Disney took - or more generally, the things taken by anyone exercising Walt Disney creativity - are valuable, our tradition does not treat those takings as wrong. Some things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that freedom is good.
={ free culture :
@@ -3029,7 +3030,8 @@ Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in the na
={ Fallows, James +1 ;
radio :
ownership concentration in +2 ;
- Murdoch, Rupert +1 }
+ Murdoch, Rupert +1
``` quote
Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its integration. They supply content - Fox movies ... Fox TV shows ... Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They sell the content to the public and to advertisers - in newspapers, on the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical distribution system through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that system will serve the same function in the United States."~{ James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," /{Atlantic Monthly}/ (September 2003): 89. }~