Larry Solum called for a clarification of Julie's "situated user." I think that's important, and have some suggestions to further the project. The definition I'll proffer has a paradox at its heart, but it captures some of what I think Julie may be after.
First, the term "situated" is a void that refuses to remain empty; it demands to be filled with details. What situations? When did they arise? How?
Details can move us beyond abstraction. Since something more specific and solid than an abstraction is needed to weigh against lawmakers' persistent mental images of romantic authorship, the notion of "situated" will be helpful in its demand for specifics.
Second, although the term "situated" refers outward to multiple possibilities, Julie does exhibit more concern for one particular situation than for others. The key situation for her is not knowing. She is worried about the needs of the potential user who does not know what she will do next, and thus cannot seek licenses for it. Thus, Julie seems primarily interested in situations in which someone is uncertain where to go, what to read, what to transform.
Third, Julie wants to contrast these situations of uncertainty, ripe with possibility, with the retrospective notion of an "end product." (Lydia Loren's post wonderfully developed this contrast between product and conduct.)
After the fact, many "products" may be licensable. Speaking prospectively, however, the user may simply want to dance (as David Lange might say)-- and someone engaged in dance has no idea what might be at stake eventually for her, and certainly no idea that where she is going may make it worthwhile to stop and get a license before she continues.
Putting this together, Julie's "situated user" seems to be an entity that, like a copyrighted work, is capable of infinite self-multiplication and variation: beginning from an abstract center point, the person can be imagined following a multitude of paths, with each path defining a new person. The legal goal would presumably be to create a shelter for such perambulations, perhaps a shelter such as a bright-line freedom from liability for experimenters who limit themselves to private or limited-purpose circulation of the works they make.
Now here's the paradox. Julie wants to abjure abstraction, but the entity I've described as needing freedom-- her protean experimenter-- is an abstraction. It's a useful addition to the categories of postmodern user and economic user that Julie identifies, but I can't see how it's different in kind in the way that Julie seems to suggest it might be. I'd like to know more.
Comments