This landmark case deals with the concepts of digital sampling and fair use.  Video Pipeline, a video promotion company, created trailers of home videos to be shown in stores.  These videos, intended to benefit the store's sales, were shown in the store and consisted of film clips acquired from the film distributors.  Video Pipeline continued this practice until 1997 when it considered the internet as a bigger, better, and more efficient way of distributing these previews.  It viewed its idea as a sort of sampling; much like a person can often sample a few pages of a book in a bookstore before buying it, they wanted to make short clips of movies available for preview before purchase.

After a few years of this distribution, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop.  However, Video Pipeline thought it was within their rights of fair use to distribute these clips and thus filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that these rights were in fact theirs.  Disney countersued for $100 million in damages.  The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Disney, and claimed that because the trailers were compiled of exact clips, they were derivative works illegal under the law.  In addition, the Plaintiff was ruled as violating performance and public display laws.  Last but definitely not least, the court ruled that the trailers did not fall under the argument of fair use for lack of adherence to the factors of fair use, which are as follows: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value for the copyrighted work.

This once again justifies the fear of filmmakers to borrow from copyrighted material, despite possible claims of fair use, because as is exemplified here, even a small borrowing of a film clip can cost millions.

Book pages 184 through 199.

In these two sections, Lessig argues that copyright laws constrain people from creating and innovating.  By mentioning and discussing the conceptions of all different types of artists, including painters, film makers, and musical artists, Lessig shows how the laws originally meant to protect these authors are now hurting them by constricting their abilities.  As Lessig states towards the end of this section of his book, "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity."

The argument of fair use of course comes up in these sections, but Lessig puts it this time in a different and interesting way, claiming that "fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create."  It's all about money and the market, and those who don't have the former can't hope to have their works distributed in the latter.  One simple infringement such as illegally downloading a song could cost a person millions of dollars in this country; however, a doctor, thanks to malpractice insurance, cannot be liable for more than $250,000, regardless of the damage to his patient.

Lessig also makes particular note of the internet and how it has increased the quantity of work out there and the speed and efficiency with which it can be shared.  Unfortunately, this should-be miracle is not utilized to its full potential because those creators and innovators that cannot afford to clear copyrights are too scared to make their work available on the internet for fear that it might be seen by someone who could sue them.  

This money driven, lawyer infested problem is stunting our culture and preventing our growth and expansion because no one wants to risk their life to put something creative and new out there.  And when the possible repercussions of taking such a risk include losing millions of dollars and consequently a livelihood, creativity and innovation suddenly begin to dwindle.

This source solidly supports my argument that copyright law is killing creativity rather than doing what it's meant to and protecting it.  It directly relates to my thesis and contributes to my claim.