This article maps patterns of interest in key terms associated with copyright and online culture in the US context. Using exploratory factor analysis of data from Google Trends, authors examined patterns in keyword searches between 2004 and 2019. The data show three distinct periods of interest. The first period consists of utopian, cause-driven search terms; the second marks a rise and eventual decline in creatively motivated, maker-fueled searches; and the third is characterized by rising utilitarian and institutional interest in accessible copyrighted material. These data show empirically that the public curiosity about alternatives to strict copyright have changed during the study period. Earlier, more idealistic movements contrast with later, more practical approaches.
AufderheidePJasziP (2018) Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
AufderheidePSinnreichASilvernailC (2019) Norms-shifting for digital and online arts practice: copyright and fair use in the visual arts community. Visual Arts Research45(2): 91–108.
5.
BollierD (2001) Public Assets, Private Profits: Reclaiming the American Commons in an Age of Market Enclosure. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
6.
BollierD (2002) Why the Public Domain Matters: The Endangered Wellspring of Creativity, Commerce and Democracy. Washington, DC: New America Foundation: Public Knowledge.
7.
BollierD (2008) Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own. New York: New Press.
8.
BollierDWattsT (2002) Saving the Information Commons: A Public Interest Agenda in Digital Media. Washington, DC: New America Foundation: Public Knowledge.
9.
BoyleJ (1996) Shamans, Software, and Spleen: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BoyleJ (2008) The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
BridyA (2012) Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: a discourse theoretic perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal30: 153–164.
12.
BridyA (2016) Copyright’s digital deputies: DMCA-plus enforcement by internet intermediaries. In: RothchildJ (ed.) Research Handbook on Electronic Commerce Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 185–208.
13.
ColemanEG (2012) Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ElleryPJVaughnWElleryJ, et al. (2008) Understanding internet health search patterns: an early exploration into the usefulness of Google Trends. Journal of Communication in Healthcare1(4): 441–456.
21.
EwickPSilbeySS (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
FisherWW (2004) Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics.
23.
GillespieT (2007) Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
GillespieT (2009) Characterizing copyright in the classroom: the cultural work of antipiracy campaigns. Communication, Culture and Critique2(3): 274–318.
25.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
HermanBD (2013) The Fight Over Digital Rights: The Politics of Copyright and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HydeL (2010) Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. 1st ed.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
28.
Internet Society (2019) Global Internet Report: Consolidation in the Internet Economy. Washington, DC: Internet Society. Available at: https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/
29.
KaplanBMillerAGeikI (2005) An Unhurried View of Copyright, Republished (And with Contributions from Friends). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.
30.
KaraganisJ (2011) Media Piracy in Emerging Economies. New York: Social Science Research Council.
31.
KimALahiriADeyD (2018) The “invisible hand” of piracy: an economic analysis of the information-goods supply chain. MIS Quarterly42(4): 1117–1141.
32.
KiousisS (2004) Explicating media salience: a factor analysis of New York Times issue coverage during the 2000 US presidential election. Journal of Communication54(1): 71–87.
33.
KlineP (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.
34.
KohringMMatthesJ (2007) Trust in news media: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research34(2): 231–252.
35.
KrikorianGKapczynskiA (2010) Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property. New York: Zone Books.
36.
LardnerJ (1987) Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR. 1st ed. New York: Norton.
37.
LeeJF (2018) Purchase, pirate, publicize: private-network music sharing and market album sales. Information Economics and Policy42: 35–55.
38.
LessigL (1999) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
39.
LessigL (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
40.
LessigL (2006) Code: Version 2.0. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
41.
LevalPN (1990) Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review103(5): 1105–1136.
42.
LitmanJ (2006) Digital Copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
MoonDRuffiniPSegalD (2013) Hacking Politics: How Geeks, Progressives, the Tea Party, Gamers, Anarchists, and Suits Teamed Up to Defeat SOPA and Save the Internet (ed MoonDRuffiniPSegalD). New York: OR Books.
50.
NghiemLTPapworthSKLimFK, et al. (2016) Analysis of the capacity of Google Trends to measure interest in conservation topics and the role of online news. PLoS ONE11(3): e0152802.
51.
PatryW (2009) Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.
PetersJ (2016) The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet. First Scribner hardcover ed. New York: Scribner.
54.
QuintaisJPPoortJ (2018) The decline of online piracy: how markets-not enforcement-drive down copyright infringement. American University International Law Review34: 807.
SamuelsonP (1997) The U.S. digital agenda at WIPO (Symposium: Intellectual Property Law in the International Marketplace). Virginia Journal of International Law37(2): 369–439.
SinnreichA (2013) The Piracy Crusade: How the Music Industry’s War on Sharing Destroys Markets and Erodes Civil Liberties. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
63.
SinnreichA (2018) Four crises in algorithmic governance. Annual Review of Law and Ethics26: 181–190.
64.
SinnreichA (2019a) Music, copyright, and technology: a dialectic in five moments. International Journal of Communication13: 422–439.
65.
SinnreichA (2019b) The Essential Guide to Intellectual Property. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
66.
SinnreichAAufderheidePNewmanD (2020) Creative action under two copyright regimes: filmmaking and visual arts in Australia and the United States. Communication, Culture and Critique. Epub ahead of print 10June2020. DOI: 10.1093/ccc/tcaa003.
67.
SprigmanCJ (2017) Copyright and creative incentives: what we know (and don’t). Houston Law Review55(2): 451–478.
TroumbisAY (2017) Declining Google Trends of public interest in biodiversity: semantics, statistics or traceability of changing priorities?Biodiversity and Conservation26(6): 1495–1505.
73.
VaidhyanathanS (2001) Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: New York University Press.
74.
VarelaB (2007) The center for the public domain: a short-lived venture philanthropy. Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society Teaching Case, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, Durham, NC.
75.
VosenSSchmidtT (2011) Forecasting private consumption: survey-based indicators vs. Google Trends. Journal of Forecasting30(6): 565–578.
76.
WatsonSJZizzoDJFlemingP (2017) Risk, benefit, and moderators of the affect heuristic in a widespread unlawful activity: evidence from a survey of unlawful file-sharing behavior. Risk Analysis37(6): 1146–1156.
