their national legal traditions. Moreover, any change in shaping the limitations invariably affects whole market segments that are so fiercely being fought over. The prospects for statutory compromise solutions in this respect look indeed rather dim.
First, copyright is not necessarily hostile to open access. For example, the open-source philosophy in software uses copyright in order to keep access open. The idea is to grant a nonexclusive license to anybody upon the condition that whoever uses the open code grants back any value that person may have added and upon condition that these users do not commercially exploit that particular software. In other words, users of open-source software under a general public license grant back to the open-source community a use right in any alterations and additions made, and they do not “proprietize” it by including open-source code in proprietary software. So open source is based on copyright and uses copyright in order to make sure that those who cheat on the conditions might be excluded.
Second, copyright can be used both to secure access and to block accessibility. This applies also to TPM and DRM. The real problems result from a too broad legal protection mainly in the field of sui generis database protection. There are also the economic concerns regarding sole sourcers, global players, and those who really want to block markets that they have either no intention to serve themselves or where they want to seek monopoly rents. The open question then is, when the price adequately reflects consumer demand, what is a monopoly rent?