[7-2] "Works are _not_ crafted out of thin air." James Boyle, _Shamans,_Software,_and_Spleens:_
_Law_and_the_Construction_of_the_Information_Society_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1996), 57.

[7-3] _Feist_Publications,_Inc._ v. _Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.,_Inc.,_ 499 U.S. 340, 345-347
(1991).

[7-4] Siva Vaidhyanathan, _Copyrights_and_Copywrongs:_The_Rise_of_Intellectual_Property_
_and_How_It_Threatens_Creativity_ (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 203.

[7-5] The United States finally extended copyright protection to foreign publishers
through the International Copyright Act of 1891, ch. 565, #13, 26 Stat. 1110 (1891). Be-
fore 1891, "the United States was notorious for its singular and, in many regards, cava-
lier attitude toward the intellectual property of foreigners." William P. Alford, "Making
the World Safe for What? Intellectual Property Rights, Human Rights and Foreign Eco-
nomic Policy in the Post-European Cold War World," _New_York_University_Journal_of_
_International_Law_&_Politics_ 29 (1997): 135, 146. See also Jessica Litman, _Digital_Copy-_
_right_ (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000), 15.

[7-6] Richard A. Posner, _Law_and_Literature,_ rev. and enlarged ed. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1998), 389. The first United States case to decide the question
comes in 1853, when a circuit court held that the copyright to _Uncle_Tom's_Cabin_ did
not reach a German translation of the same work. Vaidhyanathan, 92-93.

[7-7] John Tebbel, _A_History_of_Book_Publishing_in_the_United_States:_The_Creation_of_an_
_Industry_1630-1865_ (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1972), 141.

[7-8] These laws were Pub. L. No. 87-668, 76 Stat. 555 (1962); Pub. L. No. 89-142, 79
Stat. 581 (1965); Pub. L. No. 90-141, 81 Stat. 464 (1967); Pub. L. No. 90-416, 82 Stat.
397 (1968); Pub. L. No. 91-147, 83 Stat. 360 (1969); Pub. L. No. 91-555, 84 Stat. 1441
(1970); Pub. L. No. 92-170, 85 Stat. 490 (1971); Pub. L. No. 92-566, 86 Stat. 1181
(1972); Pub. L. No. 93-573, title I, #104, 88 Stat. 1873 (1974).

[7-9] On books, see Stephen Breyer, "The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copy-
right in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs," _Harvard_Law_Review_ 84 (1970):
281 (acknowledging the economic rationale for copyright protection of books and films,
but not software). The MPAA estimates the average cost of a feature film (including stu-
dio overhead and capitalized interest) was $51.5 million in 1999. See MPAA, "MPAA
Average Negative Costs," slide 14 of 44 (visited June 21, 2001), http://www.mpaa.org/
useconomicreview/2000Economic/slide.asp?ref=14.

[7-10] As Yochai Benkler writes, "[M]ainstream economics very clearly negates the super-
stition that if some property rights in information are good, then more rights in informa-
tion are even better." Yochai Benkler, "A Political Economy of the Public Domain:
Markets in Information Goods Versus the Marketplace of Ideas," in _Expanding_the_
_Boundaries_of_Intellectual_Property:_Innovation_Policy_for_the_Knowledge_Society,_ Ro-
chelle Cooper Dreyfuss and Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, eds. (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2001), 267, 271. As Vaidhyanathan argues:

____ Through a series of case studies in different media through the 20th Century, it argues
____ for 'thin' copyright protection: just strong enough to encourage and reward aspiring
____ artists, writers, musicians, and entrepreneurs, yet porous enough to allow full and rich
____ democratic speech and the free flow of information.

Vaidhyanathan, 8.

The skepticism among economists about perfect or extremely strong copyright pro-
tection is well known. For an expansive economic account, see Richard Watt, _Copyright_
_and_Economic_Theory:_Friends_or_Foes?_ (Cheltenham, England, and Northampton,

[[295]]

p294 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p295w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p296

v?