FOSS Open Content/References

1 See, Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (London: Putnam Publishing Group, 2000).

2 Contested Commons Public Report: A Public Record (New Delhi: Sarai: CSDS, 2005)

3 While there is a distinction between the commons and the public domain, for the purpose of this e-Primer, they are being used interchangeably in their popular sense. For a discussion of this, see David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 463 (Winter/Spring 2003)

4 For an excellent overview of copyright issues in the South see Alan Story et al. eds., The Copysouth Dossier, available at

5 See, Douglas Hay, Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975); Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993); Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (beacon Press, 2001)

6 See, James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1996).

7 A number of activists and scholars have argued that we need to avoid using the phrase "intellectual property" since it conceals more than it reveals. The phrase includes a range of property claims from trademarks, copyright, patents, geographical indications, etc., all of which belong to distinct domains, and that there is nothing that brings them together. We acknowledge this to be a serious question, and use the phrase in reference to its global usage, albeit with a certain degree of agnosticism.

8 Nitin Govil, "War in the Age of Pirate Reproduction," Sarai Reader 04: Crisis Media, pp.378-383.

9 For more on the Free Software movement, see Kenneth Wong and Phet Sayo, Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction (UNDP-APDIP and ISON, 2004) available at: and

10 Felix, Stalder, "The State of Open Content in Non-Western Countries," available at: According to Stalder, "there is no generally accepted definition of Open Content."

11 See, Lawrence Liang, “Copyright, Cultural Production and Open Content Licensing”, Indian Journal of Law and Technology, vol.1 (2006), p. 96.

12 See, John Locke, Two treatises of civil government. P. Laslett (Ed.) (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967).

13 See, Peter Drahos,A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Dartmouth, 1996); James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1996); Justin Hughes "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,” 77 The Georgetown Law Journal (1988) p. 287.

14 See, Martin Kretschmer, Artists’ Earnings and Copyright: A review of British and German music industry data in the context of digital technologies, available at: issues/issue10_1/kretschmer/. See also an interesting take on the music industry by a major American musician in “Courtney Love does the Math,” available at:

15 Lawrence Liang, Guide to Open Content licenses (Rotterdam: Piet Zwart Institute, 2005), also available at:

16 See, generally, Mark Rose Authors and Owners. The invention of copyright (Cambridge, Massachusetts. London: Harvard University Press, 1993);Martha Woodmansee,“The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’’ Eighteenth Century Studies (1984) p. 425; Martha Woodmansee, “On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal vol. 10, no. 2 (1992) p. 279; Mark Rose, “The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship” 23 Representations (1988) p. 51; Peter Jaszi, “On the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective Creativity,”Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal (1992), p. 293.

17 See, John Frow, “Copy”, from Tony Bennett et al. eds., The New keywords: A revised vocabulary of Culture and Society (Maden: Blackwell, 2005).

18 James Boyle, Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. (Cambridge,Mass., Harvard University Press, 1996).

19 See, Diane Leenheer Zimmerman,“Authorship Without Ownership: Reconsidering Incentives In A Digital Age,” DePaul Law Review (2003), p. 1121; Glynn S. Lunney, “Re-examining Copyright’s Incentives-Access Paradigm,” Vanderbilt Law Review (1996), p. 483; Linda J. Lacey, “Of Bread and Roses and Copyrights,”Duke L.J. (1989), p. 1532.

20 Marcus Maher, “Open Source Software: The Success of an Alternative Intellectual Property Incentive Paradigm,” 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J., p. 619.

21 Jeffrey Joyner, “Future Technology Clauses: Would their Lack of Compensation Have Discouraged Shakespeare‘s Creativity and Denied Society's Access to His Works in New Media?” Southwestern University Law Review (2002), p. 575.

22 John Kelsey & Bruce Schneier,“The Street Performers Protocol and Digital Copyright,” available at: See also, Roger Clarke, “Open Source Software and Open Content as Models for eBusiness,” available at:; Magnus Cedegren, “Open Content and Value Creation,” available at:

23 Steven Cherensky, “A Penny for their Thoughts: Employee-Inventors, Preinvention Assignment Agreements, Property, and Personhood,” 81 Calif. L. Rev., p. 595.

24 Trevor Ross, "Copyright and the Invention of Tradition,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 26.1 (Fall, 1992), pp. 1-28.

25 Peter Manuel, Cassette Culture: Popular Music and Technology in North India (New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).

26 Lawrence Liang,Mayur Suresh et al.,“Copyright/Copyleft: Encountering the sustaining myths of Copyright,” available at:

27 Chris Sprigman, “The Mouse That Ate The Public Domain: Disney, The Copyright Term Extension Act, And Eldred V. Ashcroft,” 537 U.S. 186 (2003), available at:

28 Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (Pengiun, 2004), also available at

29 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 372. See also, Pamela Samuelson, “The Constitutional law of Intellectual Property after Eldred v. Ashcroft”; Nadine Farid, “Not In My Library: Eldred V. Ashcroft And The Demise Of The Public Domain,” Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (Spring 2003) p. 1; Sue Ann Mota, “Eldred V. Reno – Is The Copyright Term Extension Act Constitutional?” 12 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech., p. 167.

30 This principle was diluted in subsequent cases like Campbell v.Acuff Rose Music, 114 S.Ct. 1164.

31 Johnny Acton, The Ideas Companion, (London: Think Books, 2005).

32 John Howkins, The Creative Economy: How People Make Money From Ideas (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2002).

33 See, Edward Herman and Robert McChesney, The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Cassell, 1998).

34 Alan Story et al., eds., The Copysouth Dossier, available at:

35 Ibid.

36 Niva Elkin, “What contracts can’t do: The limits of private ordering in facilitating a Creative Commons,” 74 Fordham Law Review 2005.

37 Consumer International,“Copyright and Access to Knowledge,”p. 2.See also,Andrew Rens,Achal Prabhala & Dick Kawooya, “Intellectual Property, Education and Access to Knowledge in Southern Africa.”

38 Ibid, p.3.

39 Ibid.

40 See sections in Alan Story et al. , eds., The Copysouth Dossier, available at:

41 Ibid.


43 Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (Penguin, 2004), available at:; Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs (New York: New York University Press, 2001), p. 11. See also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York Random House, 2001); Yochai Benkler, “The Wealth of Networks,” available at: index.php/Download_PDFs_of_the_book

44 Siva Vaidhyanathan on copyrights and wrongs, available at:

45 “Who is the Author? Sampling/Remixing/Open Source.” See also Severine Dusollier, “Copyleft and authorship reconsidered,” 26 Colum. JL & Arts, pp. 281–296 (2003).

46 See, Jane Gaines, Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, the Law (University of North Carolina Press, Alan Trachtenberg, 1991).

47 Kembrew McLeod,“Freedom of Expression:Overzealous Copyright Bozos and other enemies of Creativity, available at: ”

48 Fan Communities typically write their own stories using famous fictional characters.For instance you will find many Harry Potter communities who write their own versions of stories, thereby challenging the assumption that people are passive consumers.

49 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Steven Rendall trans., 1984), pp. xi-xii.

50 Phillipe Aigrain, “Positive Intellectual Rights and Information Exchanges,” available at:

51 Raqs Media Collective, “A Concise Lexicon for the Global Commons,” Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies (New Delhi: Sarai/CSDS, 2003).

52 Lawrence Liang,“Copyright, Cultural Production and Open Content Licensing,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 1 (2006), p. 96.

53 For a more detailed analysis see, Shun-Ling Chen, Free/Open Source Software: Licensing e-Primer (UNDP-APDIP and IOSN, 2006),available at: primer/ and

54 Raqs Media Collective, “A concise lexicon for the global commons,” Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies (New Delhi: Sarai/CSDS, 2003).

55 Information from

56 Yochai Benkler,“Wealth of networks,”p.70, available at:

57 Nature, 15 December 2005.

58 James Boyle, “The Opposite of Property,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 1 (Winter/Spring 2003); See also David Lange, “Recognizing the Public Domain,” Law & Contemp. Problems, Autumn 1981, p. 147; Harry Arthurs, “Reconstitution of the Public Domain”; Yochai Benkler, “Through the Looking Glass:Alice and the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Domain,”66 Law & Contemp. Probs, available at: lcp66dWinterSpring2003p173.htm

59 Taken from Lawrence Liang, Guide to Open Content licenses (Rotterdam: Piet Zwart Institute, 2005).

60 Project Gutenberg is a volunteer effort to digitize, archive and distribute cultural works. Founded in 1971, it is the oldest digital library. Most of the items in its collection are the full texts of public domain books. The project tries to make these as free as possible, in long-lasting open formats that can be used on almost any computer.

61 Raqs, “Media Collective, A concise lexicon for the global commons,” Sarai Reader 03: Shaping Technologies (New Delhi: Sarai/ CSDS, 2003).

62 See, Magnus Cedegren, “Open Content and Value Creation,” First Monday, vol. 8 (2003), available at:

63 Yochai Benkler,“Wealth of Networks,”p. 62, available at:

64 Ibid., p. 69.

65 Felix Stalder,“The State of Open Content in Non-Western Countries,” available at:

66 The TRIPS Agreement lays down the minimum global standard that has to be met in national laws on intellectual property rights. It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty in 1994. The obligations under TRIPS apply equally to all member states; however, developing countries were allowed extra time to implement the applicable changes to their national laws, in two tiers of transition according to their level of development. The transition period for developing countries expired in 2005. The transition period for least-developed countries was extended to 2016.

67 Alan Story, et al. eds., The Copysouth Dossier, available at:, see also, Niva Elkin Koren, “What Contracts Can’t Do: The Limits of Private Ordering in Facilitating a Creative Commons,” 74 Fordham Law Review, 2005.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 See, Ravi Sundaram,“Recycling modernity: Pirate electronic cultures in India,” Sarai Reader 01: The Public Domain (New Delhi: Sarai/CSDS, 2001). See also, Lawrence Liang, “Porous legalities and avenues of participation,” Sarai Reader 05: Bare Acts (New Delhi: Sarai/CSDS, 2005).

Last modified on 31 December 2011, at 18:02