Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain
Open accessAbstract
We are in the midst of an enclosure movement in our information environment. Property rights in information are increasing everywhere, and the prevailing baseline assumption is that this expansion is both efficient and just. In this article I rely on the first amendment to uncover the normative cost of embracing enclosure instead of the once dominant baseline conception that information ought to be "free as the air to common use" and subject to exclusive rights only under special circumstances. First, the article explains why, analytically, recognizing property rights in information imposes on users the same kind of constraint that media regulation laws impose on the owners of media. I suggest that just as media regulation is permissible subject to careful first amendment scrutiny, so too enforcing property rights in information is permissible, but only if the government can persuade the courts that it has very good reasons to impose the restrictions on access to and use of information necessary to effectuate these property rights. Next, I offer a modification of the standard economic explanation of the effects of intellectual property that sheds light on the effects of enforcing intellectual property rules on the way in which information production is organized. I conclude that increases in the scope of property rights increase production by large-scale commercial organizations that integrate new production with ownership of large existing-information inventories. This increase comes at the expense of smaller producers -- commercial or noncommercial -- and of noncommercial producers generally. Normatively, these effects parallel the effects generally discussed in the critique of media concentration, and pose the same threats to the values of robust political discourse and personal autonomy central to our commitment to the first amendment. Finally, I evaluate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the enforcement of mass-market shrinkwrap licenses and database protection legislation in light of the normative framework developed in the article.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast
Coleman, G. (2004) · Anthropological Quarterly · doi:10.1353/anq.2004.0035 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Culture's Open Sources: Software, Copyright, and Cultural Critique
Kelty, C. M. (2004) · Anthropological Quarterly · doi:10.1353/anq.2004.0042 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Benkler, Y.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Benkler, Yochai
- ORCID
- Benkler, Yochai
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W195737769
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 16
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
- Keywords
- First Amendment, intellectual property, media regulation, information production, media concentration, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, database protection, access to information, political discourse, individual autonomy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review