Den Stigberoende Upphovsrätten. Om konsekvenserna av rättslig inlåsning i en digital tid

Denna artikel analyserar den Europeiska upphovsrattens stigberoende (path dependence) i termer av en rattslig inlasning oformogen att anpassa sig till nyare sociala praktiker i ett digitalt samhalle. Artikeln harleder inlasningen till framforallt tre huvudskal relaterade till a) transaktionskostnader, b) makt, och c) nyckelmetaforers relation till tankestrukturer. Genom att analysera den moderna europeiska upphovsrattsliga trenden konstateras i artikeln att upphovsratten sedan lange ar etablerad genom en rad internationella fordrag, vilka forstarkts i bade sin grad av strikt reglerade undantag och kriminalisering av vissa handlingar (Infosoc) och verkstallighet (Ipred) inom EU nar den stallts infor den digitala utmaningen. Detta leder aven till att internetleverantorernas roll som neutrala formedlare av datatrafik borjat ifragasattas av bade upphovsrattslobby och politiska aktorer pa europeisk niva (Datalagringsdirektivet, Telekompaketet), vilket aven synts i lackta utkast till internationella handelsavtal med upphovsrattslig pragel (ACTA). Denna utveckling mot mer kriminalisering, de langa skyddstiderna och fler sanktioner blir intressant framforallt i relation till de delar av upphovsratten som upplever bristande legitimitet och stod i sociala normer som uppstatt i den digitala teknologins kolvatten, delvis som en foljd av regleringens icke-adaptiva rigiditet och retrospektiva inlasning. Detta paverkar darfor balanseringen av personlig integritet kontra generell overvakning online till fordel for vad som kan beskrivas som ett traditionellt forankrat upphovsrattsligt sarintresse pa bekostnad av ett mer allmant. (Less)

[1]  Roscoe Pound,et al.  The Limits of Effective Legal Action , 1917, The International Journal of Ethics.

[2]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live By , 1980 .

[3]  P. David.  Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[4]  Martin Bangemann,et al.  Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council , 1994 .

[5]  Steven L. Winter.  A Clearing in the Forest , 1995 .

[6]  J. Boyle.  Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society , 1996 .

[7]  James Boyle,et al.  A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net? , 1997 .

[8]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 1999 .

[9]  B. Peters.  Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism , 1999 .

[10]  P. Hugenholtz.  Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant, and Possibly Invalid , 2000 .

[11]  P. Pierson.  Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[12]  J. Mahoney.  Path dependence in historical sociology , 2000 .

[13]  S. Burton.  The path of law and its influence : the legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. , 2000 .

[14]  R. Posner.  Past-Dependency, Pragmatism, and Critique of History in Adjudication and Legal Scholarship , 2000 .

[15]  Jessica Litman.  Digital Copyright , 2017 .

[16]  Oona A. Hathaway.  Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Change in a Common Law Legal System , 2001 .

[17]  S. Vaidhyanathan.  Copyrights and Copywrongs , 2001 .

[18]  Paul Pierson,et al.  Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science , 2002 .

[19]  Oona A. Hathaway.  Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System , 2003 .

[20]  Trevor Cook.  UK implementation of the Copyright in the Information Society Directive , 2004, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[21]  Thomas W. Lauer,et al.  Media transitions: The cases of digital imagery and e-mail , 2004, Inf. Technol. People.

[22]  Lawrence Lessig,et al.  Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity , 2004 .

[23]  Sylvia Kierkegaard.  Taking a sledgehammer to crack the nut: The EU Enforcement Directive , 2005, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[24]  Håkan Selg,et al.  Broadband technologies transforming business models and challenging regulatory frameworks – lessons from the music industry : Musiclessons - Deliverable 9. Report from workshops , 2006 .

[25]  Steven L. Winter.  Re-Embodying Law , 2006 .

[26]  Tarleton Gillespie.  Wired Shut, Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture , 2009 .

[27]  Per Wickenberg,et al.  Contributions in Sociology of Law. Remarks from a Swedish Horizon. , 2008 .

[28]  J. Zittrain.  The Future of the Internet , 2008 .

[29]  Lawrence Lessig,et al.  Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy , 2008 .

[30]  S. Glucksberg.  The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought: How metaphors create categories – quickly , 2008 .

[31]  S. Larsson.  Non-Legal Aspects of Legally Controlled Decision-Making: The Failure of Predictability in Governing the 3g Infrastructure Development in Sweden , 2008 .

[32]  Kristoffer Schollin.  Digital Rights Management. The New Copyright , 2008 .

[33]  Stefan Larsson,et al.  Between Daring and Deliberating: 3G as a sustainability issue in Swedish spatial planning , 2008 .

[34]  Måns Svensson,et al.  The Concept of Norms in Sociology of Law , 2008 .

[35]  J. Boyle.  The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind , 2008 .

[36]  Steven L. Winter.  The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought: What is the “color” of law? , 2008 .

[37]  Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents.  When Rights Clash Online: The Tracking of P2p Copyright Infringements Vs. the EC Personal Data Directive , 2008, Int. J. Law Inf. Technol..

[38]  Stefan Larsson,et al.  SOCIAL NORMS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Online norms and the European legal development , 2009 .

[39]  Stefan Larsson.  The darling conceptions of your time, or: why Galileo Galilei sings so sadly in the chorus , 2009 .

[40]  Stefan Larsson,et al.  Law, Deviation and Paradigmatic Change: Copyright and its Metaphors , 2010 .

[41]  S. Larsson,et al.  Compliance or Obscurity? Online Anonymity as a Consequence of Fighting Unauthorised File-sharing , 2010 .

[42]  M. Senftleben.  Bridging the Differences between Copyright's Legal Traditions – The Emerging EC Fair Use Doctrine , 2010 .

[43]  S. Larsson.  Metaphors and Norms - Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society , 2011 .

[44]  Stefan Larsson.  The Path Dependence of European Copyright , 2011 .

[45]  wiweka warnling-nerep.  Vad är rätt , 2012 .

[46]  Stefan Larsson,et al.  Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms , 2012, New Media Soc..