copyright-versus-community.html - en to zh_CN translation catalogue (168 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 计算机网络时代的版权和社区 - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks
zh_CN: 计算机网络时代的版权和社区

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by Richard Stallman
zh_CN: Richard Stallman 著

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Keynote speech at LIANZA conference, Christchurch Convention Centre, 12 October 2009.
zh_CN: LIANZA 会议的主题演讲，Christchurch 会议中心，2009 年 10 月 12 日。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: There is an <a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.html">older version</a> of this talk, from 2000.
zh_CN: 有个 2000 年此演讲的 <a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community-2000.html">老版本</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <b>BC:&nbsp;</b> Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.  Today I have the privilege of introducing Richard Stallman, whose keynote speech is being sponsored by the School of Information Management at Victoria University of Wellington.
zh_CN: <b>BC：</b>（毛利语）大家好，大家好，大家好。（英语）今天我们有幸请到 Richard Stallman，他的主题演讲由惠灵顿维多利亚大学的信息管理学院赞助。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Richard has been working to promote software freedom for over 25 years.  In 1983 he started the GNU project to develop a free operating system [the GNU system], and in 1985 he set up the Free Software Foundation.  Every time you read or send a message to nz-libs, you use the Mailman software which is part of the GNU project.  So whether you realize it or not, Richard's work has touched all of your lives.
zh_CN: Richard 已经为推广软件自由工作了超过 25 个年头了。在 1983 他开始了 GNU 工程，意在开发一个自由操作系统 [GNU 系统]，并在 1985 年成立了自由软件基金会。每次你阅读或者发送信息到 nz-libs<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>，你用到的 Mailman 软件就是 GNU工程的一部分。因此，无论你是否意识到，Richard 的工作都已经触及你们所有人的生活。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I like to describe him as the most influential person most people have never heard of, although he tells me that that cannot possibly be true because it cannot be tested.
zh_CN: 他告诉我这没法求证，这样说不对。但我还是想说他是大多人闻所未闻的最有影响力的人。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <b>RMS:&nbsp;</b> We can't tell.
zh_CN: <b>RMS：</b>我们不能那么说。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <b>BC:&nbsp;</b> I said that&mdash;I still like it.  His ideas about software freedom and free access to information were used by Tim Berners-Lee when he created the world's first web server, and in 1999 his musings about a free online encyclopedia inspired Jimmy Wales to set up what is now Wikipedia.
zh_CN: <b>BC：</b>我说过&mdash;&mdash;我还是喜欢这个说法。在 Berners-Lee 创建世界上第一个网络服务器时，他就使用了 Richard 关于软件自由和信息访问自由的理念；而 Richard 1999 关于自由在线百科全书的设想激励了 Jimmy Wales 搭建出目前的 Wikipedia。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Today Richard will be talking to us about copyright vs community in the age of computer networks, and their implications for libraries.  Richard.
zh_CN: 今天， Richard 将给大家带来的演讲是计算机网络时代的版权和社区及其对图书馆的影响。有请 Richard。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: <a href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list about the dangers of e-books</a>.
zh_CN: <a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">请加入我们关于电子书之危险的邮件列表</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <b>RMS:&nbsp;</b> I've been in New Zealand for a couple of weeks, and in the North Island it was raining most of the time.  Now I know why they call gumboots &ldquo;Wellingtons.&rdquo; And then I saw somebody who was making chairs and tables out of ponga wood, and he called it fern-iture.  Then we took the ferry to get here, and as soon as we got off, people started mocking and insulting us; but there were no hard feelings, they just wanted to make us really feel Picton.
zh_CN: <b>RMS：</b>我来新西兰的几个星期中，北岛经常在下雨。现在我知道大家为什么把雨靴叫 &ldquo;惠灵顿&rdquo;。然后，我看到有人用 ponga 木制作桌子和椅子，并称之为家俱<sup><a href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>。我们坐轮渡来到这里，我们一下来，人们就开始模仿并“骚扰”我们；但是我们并不生气，他们只是让我们感受一下真正的皮克顿情怀。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The reason people usually invite me to give speeches is because of my work on free software.  This is not a talk about free software; this talk answers the question whether the ideas of free software extend to other kinds of works.  But in order for that to make sense, I'd better tell you briefly what free software means.
zh_CN: 我的演讲经常有关自由软件上的工作。但这次的演讲不是关于自由软件；这次演讲会解释自由软件理念能否扩展到其他类型作品。但是要讲得清楚，我最好简单介绍一下自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free beer.&rdquo; Free software is software that respects the user's freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user deserves always to have.
zh_CN: 自由软件讨论的是自由，而非价格，所以大家要联想到 &ldquo;言论自由&rdquo;，而非 &ldquo;免费午餐&rdquo;。自由软件是尊重用户自由的软件，而用户应该掌握四个具体的软件自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之零：有自由按照自己的意愿运行软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do what you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之一：有自由学习程序的源代码并更改代码使之按照自己的意愿执行。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbour; that is, the freedom to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之二：有自由敦亲睦邻、助人为乐；就是说，有自由按照自己的意愿再分发原来程序的拷贝。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: And Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community.  That's the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之四：有自由为社区做贡献。就是说，有自由按照自己的意愿发布修改版的程序版本。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If the program gives you these four freedoms then it's free software, which means the social system of its distribution and use is an ethical system, one which respects the user's freedom and the social solidarity of the user's community.  But if one of these freedoms is missing or insufficient, then it's proprietary software, nonfree software, user-subjugating software.  It's unethical.  It's not a contribution to society, it's a power grab.  This unethical practice should not exist; the goal of the free software movement is to put an end to it.  All software should be free, so that all users can be free.
zh_CN: 如果一个程序给你四个自由，那么它就是自由软件，这意味着发布和使用该程序的社会系统是一个有道德的系统，是一个尊重用户自由和尊重用户社区团结的系统。但是如果一个程序缺少其中一个自由或者其自由不充分，那么它就是专有软件、非自由软件、压制用户的软件。它是不道德的。它不是在为社会做贡献，它是在攫取权力。这种不道德的行为不应该存在；自由软件的目标就是要终止这种行为。所有的软件都应该是自由的，这样所有的用户才能是自由的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, because they're forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they don't have the source code so they can't change it.  They can't even study it to verify what it's really doing to them, and many proprietary programs have malicious features which spy on the user, restrict the user, even back doors to attack the user.
zh_CN: 专有软件使用户孤立无援：孤立是说他们不能分享软件、无援是指他们没有源代码而无法修改软件。用户甚至无法阅读源代码来确认软件是否在为用户服务，而许多专有程序有多种恶意功能来监控用户、限制用户乃至利用后门攻击用户。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can forcibly install software changes, without getting permission from the supposed owner of the computer.  You may think it's your computer, but if you've made the mistake of having Windows running in it, then really Microsoft has owned your computer.  Computers need to be defenestrated, which means either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window.
zh_CN: 比如，Microsoft Windows 就有个后门，Microsoft 可以利用它未经授权地强行安装软件更新。你也许以为那是你的电脑，但是如果你不小心运行了 Windows，那么电脑的真正拥有者是 Microsoft。这些电脑应该被扔掉，要么是把 Windows 扔出电脑，要么就是把电脑扔到窗外<sup><a href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over the users.  Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some abuse it less, but none of them ought to have it.  You deserve to have control of your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a particular company.  So you deserve free software.
zh_CN: 但是任何专有软件都给了开发者凌驾于用户之上的不公正权力。有些开发者滥用多了一些权力，另一些开发者滥用得少一点，但是他们本来就不该有这些权力。你有权控制你的计算，而不是被迫依赖于某个公司。因此，你理应拥有自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask whether these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things.  If you have a copy of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to ask whether you should have the same four freedoms&mdash;whether it's ethically essential that you have them or not.  And that's the question that I'm going to address today.
zh_CN: 在有关自由软件的演讲最后，人们有时会问同样的自由和理念是否可用于其他的事物。如果你的电脑中有出版品的拷贝，那思考是否该拥有对那份作品相同的四自由是说的通地&mdash;&mdash;无论拥有这些自由是否非常重要。这就是我今天要演讲的问题。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If you have a copy of something that's not software, for the most part, the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is copyright law.  With software that's not so.  The main ways of making software nonfree are contracts and withholding the source code from the users.  Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method.  For other things there's no such distinction as between source code and executable code.
zh_CN: 如果复制的东西不是软件，那么最可能剥夺这些自由的是版权法。而对软件却不是。合同和对用户的源代码封锁使软件不自由。而版权只是次要、备用的。其它作品没有源代码和可执行代码的区别。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, if we're talking about a text, if you can see the text to read it, there's nothing in the text that you can't see.  So it's not the same kind of issue exactly as software.  It's for the most part only copyright that might deny you these freedoms.
zh_CN: 比如，如果我们讲的是文稿，如果你看见文稿就可以读了，那么文稿对你来说并不能隐藏什么。因此，文稿和软件的问题不完全是一类问题。对文稿来说，大部分情况可能是版权剥夺了你的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So the question can be restated: &ldquo;What should copyright law allow you to do with published works? What should copyright law say?&rdquo;
zh_CN: 换个问法：&ldquo;版权法应该让你怎样对待已发表的作品？版权法应该怎样说呢？&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it's useful to review the history of copying technology.  Copying developed in the ancient world, where you'd use a writing instrument on a writing surface.  You'd read one copy and write another.
zh_CN: 版权是和复制技术一起发展起来的，因此回顾一下复制技术的历史是有益的。复制产生于古代，那时你需要使用书写工具在某种表面上书写，通常是一边看，一边复制。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting characteristic was that it had no economy of scale.  To write ten copies would take ten times as long as to write one copy.  It required no special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it required no special skill other than literacy itself.  The result was that copies of any particular book were made in a decentralized manner.  Wherever there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he could.
zh_CN: 这种技术的效率相当低，但是它的另一个特点是没有规模经济效应。要复制 10 个拷贝就需要化复制 1 个拷贝的 10 倍时间。除了书写工具，它也不需要其他特定的设备，而且除了识字也不需要其他技术。其结果就是书籍的复制都是非中心化的。只要手里有一本书，无论在哪里，只要有人要复制一本，就地就可以复制。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world.  If you had a copy and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren't allowed&mdash;except if the local prince didn't like what the book said, in which case he might punish you for copying it.  But that's not copyright, but rather something closely related, namely censorship.  To this day, copyright is often used in attempts to censor people.
zh_CN: 在古代并没有版权这样的事。如果你有本书，你想复制一本，没人会拦着你&mdash;&mdash;除非当地的达官贵人不喜欢那本书的言辞，这时如果你再复制就会受到惩罚。但这不是版权，而是和版权很有关联的审查。直到今天，版权还常常被用来审查大家。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big advance in copying technology, namely the printing press.  The printing press made copying more efficient, but not uniformly.  [This was] because mass production copying became a lot more efficient, but making one copy at a time didn't benefit from the printing press.  In fact, you were better off just writing it by hand; that would be faster than trying to print one copy.
zh_CN: 这个状况持续了几千年，然后复制技术有了一个巨大的进展，就是印刷术。印刷术使复制变得更有效率，但是并不是对所有的情况都一致。[这]是因为大规模复制变得非常高效，但是每次只复制一本的话就没有从印刷术获得什么益处。事实上，如果手写的话，写一本还更好；因为这比印刷一本更快。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work to set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast.  Also, the printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most people didn't own; and the ability to use them, most literate people didn't know.  Using a press was a different skill from writing.  The result was a centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any given book would be made in a few places, and then they would be transported to wherever someone wanted to buy copies.
zh_CN: 印刷业有一个经济规模效应：制作模具需要很多劳动，但是此后你就可以很快印出许多副本。还有，印刷和模具的设备很贵，大多数人都买不起；而且大多数识字的人也不知道怎么用。印刷术的使用和书写技术不同。其结果就是复制变成中心化：书籍的复制就在几个地方进行，然后运输到要买书的人那里。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Copyright began in the age of the printing press.  Copyright in England began as a system of censorship in the 1500s.  I believe it was originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around and used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well.  According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form of a perpetual monopoly to publish it.  This was allowed to lapse in the 1680s, I believe [it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia entry].  The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was something somewhat different.  The Statute of Anne gave authors a copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it once.
zh_CN: 版权开始于印刷时代。版权在英国是在十六世纪作为一项审查系统开始的。我相信它起初是为了审查抗议者，但是后来反过来用于审查教会和一些其它对象。根据这个法律，要出一本书，你必须从皇帝那里获得许可，出版权被垄断地授予给个人。这个一直持续到十六世纪八十年代，我相信[根据 Wikipedia 的条目，它在 1695 年被废止]。出版商还想讨回，但是他们得到了不同的东西。《安妮法》<sup><a href="#TransNote4">4</a></sup>赋予作者版权，并且只有 14 年，虽然作者可以再续一次。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This was a totally different idea&mdash;a temporary monopoly for the author, instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher.  The idea developed that copyright was a means of promoting writing.
zh_CN: 这是一个完全不同的理念&mdash;&mdash;作者拥有一个临时的垄断权，而不是出版商拥有永久的垄断权。其背后的思想发展成为版权是促进写作的手段。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to be entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected.  Instead, the US Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress.  In other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or anybody they do business with, but for the general public.  Copyright has to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget about this.
zh_CN: 撰写美国宪法之时，有人想让作者拥有版权，但是被拒绝了。作为替代，美国宪法说国会可以通过一个版权法，而如果需要有版权法，那么版权法的目的应该是促进发展。换句话说，其目的不是为了让版权持有者或者与其交易者受益，而是为了公众。版权必须有期限；出版商一直希望我们忘掉这些。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation on publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits to the public at large.  It functioned this way because it didn't restrict the readers.
zh_CN: 自此，我们的理念是版权作为一个针对出版商的行业规范，它由作者控制，并设计成为大众谋福利的版权。之所以它能为大众谋福利，是因为没有限制读者。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the 1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn't afford printed copies.  Nobody ever expected copyright law to be something other than an industrial regulation.  It wasn't meant to stop people from writing copies, it was meant to regulate the publishers.  Because of this it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for society.
zh_CN: 在有印刷术的前期，我确信还是在十八世纪九十年代，许多读者仍然手写复制，因为他们还买不起印刷本。人人都认为版权法是个行业规范。它不是用来限制人们手写复制的，它是来规范出版商的。因此，它容易执行，也不自相矛盾，也似乎使社会受益。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against publishers.  And it's easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a book&mdash;you go to a bookstore and say &ldquo;where do these copies come from?&rdquo; You don't have to invade everybody's home and everybody's computer to do that.
zh_CN: 因为执法只需要针对出版商，所以版权法容易执行。而且找到未授权的出版商也容易&mdash;&mdash;你到书店说&ldquo;这些副本是哪里来的？&rdquo;。你无需每家每户地搜索，也无需检查每个人的电脑。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, they had nothing to complain about.  Theoretically they were restricted from publishing, but not being publishers and not having printing presses, they couldn't do that anyway.  In what they actually could do, they were not restricted.
zh_CN: 说它不自相矛盾是因为读者没有被限制，他们没什么可抱怨。理论上，读者不能出版，但是他们既不是出版商，也没有出版的设备，总之他们没法出版。就读者可作的事情来说，他们没有被限制。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to the concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they were not in a position to exercise.  In exchange, they got the benefits of more writing.
zh_CN: 说它似乎使社会受益是因为根据版权法的概念，公众交易掉了一个不能实施的、理论上的权利。作为回报，他们获得了会有更多人写作的好处。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and you get something you can use in exchange, it's a positive trade.  Whether or not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, that's a different question, but at least it's positive.
zh_CN: 如果你交易掉一些你无法使用的东西，而获得一些你可以使用的东西，这个交易是正向的。你是否还能获得更好的交易，那是不同的问题，但是至少这个交易让我们赚了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don't think I'd be complaining about copyright law.  But the age of the printing press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer networks&mdash;another advance in copying technology that makes copying more efficient, and once again not uniformly so.
zh_CN: 因此，如果还是在印刷时代，那么我觉得我也不会在这里抱怨版权法。但是印刷时代已经渐渐让位给计算机网络时代&mdash;&mdash;复制技术的另一个进步，它让复制更有效，而且又一次不是那么一致。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Here's what we had in the age of the printing press: mass production very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as the ancient world.  Digital technology gets us here: they've both benefited, but one-off copying has benefited the most.
zh_CN: 我们在印刷时代有的是：非常高效的大规模生产，但一次一个的复制还是和古代一样缓慢。数字技术时代带来：生产和复制都获益，但一次性复制获益最大。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one at a time copying is not so much worse [i.e., harder] than mass production copying.  It's a little bit less efficient, a little bit less good, but it's perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions of people do it.  Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, even in poor countries.  You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you go to a store where you can do it.
zh_CN: 我们又到了一个非常象古代的情形，一次一个的复制和规模复制相比差不多[也可以说,不是更难]。一次一个的复制效率低一些、质量差一些，但是它足够便宜，广大群众都可进行复制。想一想，即使是在贫穷的国家，这会儿会有多少人在刻录 CD 碟片。你也许自己没有刻录机，但是你可以到商店去刻录。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as it used to.  Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they wouldn't have the same effect.  Instead of an industrial regulation on publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to the public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled mainly by the publishers, in the name of the authors.
zh_CN: 这意味着版权不再象以前那样适合新技术。即使版权法的名字没有改变，它们也不再会有同样的效果了。不再是一个由作者控制的出版行业的规范，也不再为公众谋福利，版权现在成了对公众的限制，它主要由出版商控制，而且是以作者的名义控制。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In other words, it's tyranny.  It's intolerable and we can't allow it to continue this way.
zh_CN: 换句话说，它现在是暴君。这是无法容忍的，我们不能再这样下去。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a result of this change, [copyright] is no longer easy to enforce, no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial.
zh_CN: 这个变化的结果就是，[版权]不再容易实施，不再有益，而且自相矛盾。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires cruel measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition of our basic ideas of justice.  There's almost no limit to how far they will propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing.
zh_CN: 不容易实施是因为出版商要对每个个人进行执法，这就要求残酷的手段、严苛的惩罚、对隐私的侵犯，并且要废除正义的基本理念。他们追究分享的战争几乎不会有限度。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's no longer uncontroversial.  There are political parties in several countries whose basic platform is &ldquo;freedom to share.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 它自相矛盾。好几个国家都有以 &ldquo;自由分享&rdquo; 做为基础平台的政治党派。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually traded away (because we couldn't exercise them), we now can exercise.  They're tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them.
zh_CN: 它不再有益是因为我们过去交易掉的自由（那时不能实施），我们现在可以实施了。这些自由现在非常有用，而且我们现在要实施这些自由了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What would a democratic government do in this situation?
zh_CN: 一个民主国家此刻应该怎么做呢？

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It would reduce copyright power.  It would say: &ldquo;The trade we made on behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom which now they need, is intolerable.  We have to change this; we can't trade away the freedom that is important.&rdquo; We can measure the sickness of democracy by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite around the world, extending copyright power when they should reduce it.
zh_CN: 它会减少版权的权力。它会说：&ldquo;我们过去为公民做的交易——交易掉一些自由，现在人们需要这些自由了——变得无法忍受。我们要改变；我们不能再交易这些重要的自由。&rdquo;我们可以通过测量各个政府对这事的推动力来判断其民主的程度，如果该减少版权的权力时，政府还在加强，那么其民主程度可想而知。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One example is in the dimension of time.  Around the world we see pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer.
zh_CN: 一个例子就是时间维度。从世界范围来看，版权一直变得越来越长。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A wave of this started in the US in 1998.  Copyright was extended by 20 years on both past and future works.  I do not understand how they hope to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and 30s to write more back then by extending copyright on their works now.  If they have a time machine with which to inform them, they haven't used it.  Our history books don't say that there was a burst of vigor in the arts in the 20s when all the artists found out that their copyrights would be extended in 1998.
zh_CN: 这个趋势始于 1998 年的美国。版权当时对过去和未来的作品都延长了 20 年。我无法理解他们怎么会希望延长版权能够鼓励现在已经去世或年迈的二三十年代的作家在过去能够多写一些作品。如果他们有一个时间机器可以通知过去的人，那么他们也没有用上。历史并没有记载 20 年代的作家由于知道了 1998 年版权会延长而开始了创作大爆发。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on future works would convince people to make more effort in producing those works.  But not anyone rational, because the discounted present value of 20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the future&mdash;if it's a work made for hire&mdash;and probably even longer if it's a work with an individual copyright holder, is so small it couldn't persuade any rational person to do anything different.  Any business that wants to claim otherwise ought to present its projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future, which of course they can't do because none of them really looks that far ahead.
zh_CN: 对未来作品延长 20 年版权理论上有鼓励人们更愿意花力气写作的作用。但是对理性的人不是这样的，因为 75 年之后再延长 20 年对现在没有太大价值&mdash;&mdash;如果作品是职务职责&mdash;&mdash;而如果是个人版权所有，那可能应该更长一些，20 年不足以让一个理性的人变得有什么不同。有不同意见的生意人应该拿出其将来 75 年的预计资产负责表，显然他们拿不出来，因为没人会想那么遥远的事。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various companies to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws are decided on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies and they wanted those monopolies to continue.
zh_CN: 这项法律的真正原因以及促使各个公司到美国国会鼓动这项法律的动机——这也是美国大多数法律被决定的方式——就是这些公司有垄断暴利，而他们想继续这种垄断。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey Mouse appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and then anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of other works.  Disney didn't want that to happen.  Disney borrows a lot from the public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest thing back.  So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act.
zh_CN: 举个例子，迪士尼知道米老鼠出现的首部电影几年之内就会进入公有领域，那时任何人都可以在自己的作品里画上同样的形象。迪士尼不希望这样的事情出现。虽然迪士尼从公有领域借鉴了大量的东西，但是它丝毫不考虑给予公有领域些须回报。因此迪士尼花钱支持上面的法律，我们称之为米老鼠版权条例。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US Constitution won't let them get that officially.  So they came up with a way to get the same result unofficially: &ldquo;perpetual copyright on the installment plan.&rdquo; Every 20 years they extend copyright for 20 more years.  So that at any given time, any given work has a date when it will supposedly fall into the public domain.  But that date is like tomorrow, it never comes.  By the time you get there they will have postponed it, unless we stop them next time.
zh_CN: 电影公司说他们想要永久版权，但是美国宪法不允许他们正式拥有那样的权利。因此他们找到了一条另外的途径来非正式地那么做：&ldquo;永久版权的实施计划&rdquo;。每隔 20 年 他们就把版权再延长 20 年。这样，任何时间点、任何作品都会有一个将会进入公有领域的日期。但是这个日期就象是明天，永远也不会到来。当这个日期快到时，他们就会推迟它，除非我们阻止它。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That's one dimension, the dimension of duration.  But even more important is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does copyright cover?
zh_CN: 这就是期限这个维度。但是还有一个更重要的宽度维度：版权应该覆盖怎样的使用范围？

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn't supposed to cover all uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated certain uses that were the exceptions in a broader space of unregulated uses.  There were certain things you were simply allowed to do with your copy of a book.
zh_CN: 在印刷时代，版权并不覆盖作品的所有使用范围，因为版权规范的是非常规使用的某些例外。你对一本书的很多使用还是被直接允许的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our computers against us, and use them to seize total power over all use of published works.  They want to set up a pay-per-view universe.  They're doing it with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)&mdash;the intentional features of software that's designed to restrict the user.  And often the computer itself is designed to restrict the user.
zh_CN: 现在，出版商想用我们的电脑来对付我们，而且要使用它们来获得对已出版作品的全面控制。他们想要的是每次看书都要付费的世界。他们使用的方法是 DRM（数字限制管理）&mdash;&mdash;设计目的就是要限制用户的软件功能。而电脑本身也是常常被设计成限制用户的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs.  A movie on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret.  The DVD conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to make DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the format secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the users according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from doing this, from doing that, from doing that&mdash;a precise set of requirements, all of which are malicious towards us.
zh_CN: 公众第一次看到这种事应该是 DVD。电影的 DVD 版通常是加密的，而其格式曾是个秘密。DVD 阴谋团伙保守着这个秘密，因为他们说想要制造 DVD 播放器的人也要加入他们并保守秘密，而且要按照规矩制造限制用户的 DVD 播放器，防止用户干这干那&mdash;&mdash;有一系列精准的要求，全部都是对用户有恶意的功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a DVD and playing it.  Then the publishers said &ldquo;since we can't actually stop them, we have to make it a crime.&rdquo; And they started that in the US in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which imposed censorship on software capable of doing such jobs.
zh_CN: 这个方式运行了一段时间，然后有人搞明白了秘密格式并发布了能够播放 DVD 电影的自由软件。然后出版商就说&ldquo;我们不能拿他们怎么样，所以我们要让这变成犯罪&rdquo;。然后他们于 1998 年在美国制定了数字千禧版权法，就是要对这些软件强加审查。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a court case.  Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices censorship of software.
zh_CN: 因此，播放 DVD 的自由软件成了法庭案例。它被禁止在美国发布；美国就此开始了对软件的审查。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The movie companies are well aware that they can't really make that program disappear&mdash;it's easy enough to find it.  So they designed another encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, and it's called AACS, or the axe.
zh_CN: 电影公司非常清楚他们无法真正根除这个程序&mdash;&mdash;它很容易找到。因此，他们又设计了另一种更难破解的加密系统，那就是 AACS 或者叫 axe。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players.  For instance, in 2011 it's going to be forbidden to make analog video outputs.  So all video outputs will have to be digital, and they will carry the signal encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep secrets from the user.  That is malicious hardware.  They say that the purpose of this is to &ldquo;close the analog hole.&rdquo; I'll show you a couple of analog holes (Stallman takes off his glasses): here's one and here's another, that they'd like to poke out permanently.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>
zh_CN: AACS 阴谋集团对播放器又提出了精准的需求。例如，到 2011 年将禁止生产输出模拟视频的播放器。因此，所有视频输出都将是数字信号，而数字视频信号会加密输入到密制的用户显示器。这是一种恶意硬件。他们说目的是为了&ldquo;防止模拟漏洞&rdquo;。我给你们看看两个模拟漏洞（Stallman 摘下眼镜）：这里一个，这里还有一个（两个眼镜片），他们想永远把这两个洞挡起来。<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they're not secret&mdash;they have websites.  The AACS website proudly describes the contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know about this requirement.  It proudly states the names of the companies that have established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and Apple, and Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM.
zh_CN: 我是怎么知道这些阴谋团体的呢？原因就是他们并不是秘密&mdash;&mdash;他们有网站。AACS 的网站还自豪地展示着制造商需要签订的合同，我就是从这里知道他们的要求的。它还自豪地展示了组成这个阴谋团体的公司，包括 Microsoft、Apple、Intel、Sony、Disney 和 IBM。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public's access to technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a conspiracy to fix prices, except it's worse, so the prison sentences for this should be longer.  But these companies are quite confident that our governments are on their side against us.  They have no fear against being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they don't bother to hide them.
zh_CN: 一个由公司组成的阴谋团体，其目的是要限制公众对技术的掌握，这个团体应该作为严重犯罪被起诉，就像欺行霸市的帮会一样；只不过帮会更恶劣，所以刑罚更重些。不过这些公司还是相当自信，认为政府是和他们是一路的。他们丝毫不害怕会因为这些阴谋被起诉，这也是他们敢把阴谋亮出来的原因。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In general DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies.  Once in a while a single company can do it, but generally it requires a conspiracy between technology companies and publishers, so [it's] almost always a conspiracy.
zh_CN: 一般来说，DRM 是由一个由公司构成的阴谋团伙搞的。有时，单个公司也能操作，但是通常 DRM 要求从技术到出版商的公司团伙，因此[它]几乎总是一个阴谋团伙。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but about three and a half years ago someone released a free program capable of decrypting that format.  However, it was totally useless, because in order to run it you need to know the key.
zh_CN: 他们觉得永远也不会有人能够破解 AACS，但是大约三年半之前，有人发布了可以解密 AACS 的自由软件。不过，这个软件完全没用，因为运行它还需要知道密钥。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with 32 hex digits above them, and I wondered: &ldquo;Why put those two things together? I wonder if those numbers are some important key, and someone could have put the numbers together with the puppies, figuring people would copy the photo of the puppies because they were so cute.  This would protect the key from being wiped out.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 然后，六个月之后，我看到两个可爱小狗的照片，上面写着 32 个十六进制数字，我在想：&ldquo;为什么把这两个东西放在一起呢？我猜测这些数字是一些重要的密钥，而有人要把它和小狗放在一起，人们可能会复制这张可爱小狗的照片。这样就会保护这些密钥不会被抹去。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And that's what it was&mdash;that was the key to break the axe.  People posted it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many countries now conscript them to censor this information.  It was posted again, they deleted it; eventually they gave up, and in two weeks this number was posted in over 700,000 web sites.
zh_CN: 这就是密钥&mdash;&mdash;破解 axe 的密钥。人们把它贴出来，编辑把它删掉，因为许多国家的法律强制他们要审查此信息。人们再把它贴出来，编辑再删除；最后编辑放弃了，两周之内，这个数字被贴到超过 700,000 个网站。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That's a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM.  But it didn't win the war, because the publishers changed the key.  Not only that: with HD DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray.  Blu-ray has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free software that can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray disks as something incompatible with your own freedom.  They are an enemy with which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our present level of knowledge.
zh_CN: 这是人们在发泄对 DRM 的不满。但是这并不是战争的胜利，因为出版商更改了密码。不仅如此：对 HD DVD 来说，这个密码可以破解 DRM，但是对蓝光不行。蓝光带有额外一层 DRM，目前为止还没有自由软件可以破解它，这意味着蓝光碟片还要被当作和自由不兼容的东西。它们还是不能容忍的敌人，至少以我们目前的知识水平还不行。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom.  If you don't have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn't buy or rent any DVDs, or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare non-encrypted DVDs, which there are a few of.  I actually have a few [of these]&mdash;I don't have any encrypted DVDs, I won't take them.
zh_CN: 永远也不要接受任何为攻击你的自由而设计的产品。如果你不能用自由软件播放 DVD，那么就不要购买或租用 DVD 碟片，也不要接受此类的礼品，除非是少量的不加密 DVD 碟片，它们并不多见。实际上，我有些[这样的碟片]&mdash;&mdash;我没有加密的 DVD，我也不会要。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So this is how things stand in video, but we've also seen DRM in music.
zh_CN: 这就是影视界出现的事情，但是 DRM 在音乐界也出现了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that looked like compact disks, but they weren't written quite like compact disks.  They didn't follow the standard.  We called them 'corrupt disks', and the idea of them was that they would play in an audio player, but it was impossible to read them on a computer.  These different methods had various problems.
zh_CN: 例如，大约十年前，我们开始看到类似 CD 的东西，但是它们不是按照 CD 格式刻录的。它们没有执行 CD 的标准。我们称之为 'corrupt disks' 而不是 'compact disks'，其中的思路是它们可以用播放器播放，但是无法用电脑读出。这些不标准的方法有诸多问题。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea.  They put a program on the disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk would install the program.  This program was designed like a virus to take control of the system.  It's called a 'root kit', meaning that it has things in it to break the security of the system so that it can install the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts of the system.
zh_CN: 最终，Sony 想到一个鬼点子。他们在碟片上放了一个程序，如果你把碟片插入计算机，那么碟片就会安装这个程序。这个程序就像是个病毒，它会控制整个系统。它被叫做 '超级用户工具箱'，意思是它能够破解安全系统，这样它就能够在系统深处安装软件并修改系统的各种部件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself.  It modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, so that it wouldn't really delete them.  Now all of this is a serious crime, but it's not the only one Sony committed, because the software also included free software code&mdash;code that had been released under the GNU General Public License.
zh_CN: 例如，它会修改你用来查看系统软件的命令，这样它就能够隐藏自己。它会修改你删除某些文件的命令，这样它就不会被真的删除。现在，这些都是严重的犯罪，但 Sony 并不是只犯了这个罪，因为这个软件还包含了自由软件的代码&mdash;&mdash;按照 GNU 通用公共许可证发布的代码。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says &ldquo;Yes, you're free to put this code into other things, but when you do, the entire program that you put things into you must release as free software under the same license.  And you must make the source code available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must give them a copy of this license when they get the software.&rdquo;
zh_CN: GNU GPL 是 copyleft 许可证，这意味着&ldquo;是的，你有自由把该代码放到其他地方，但是如果你那么做了，带有该代码的整个程序都必须按照同样的许可证发行并成为自由软件。因此，你必须让用户可以得到源代码，并且告诉用户的权利并在他们拿到软件时给他们一份许可证的副本。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Sony didn't comply with all that.  That's commercial copyright infringement, which is a felony.  They're both felonies, but Sony wasn't prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose of the government and the law is to maintain the power of those companies over us, not to help defend our freedom in any way.
zh_CN: Sony 并没有遵守这些。这是对商业版权的侵犯，是重罪。Sony 犯的两个罪都是重罪，但是它并没有被起诉，因为政府知道自己和法律的目的就是维护这些公司的权力，而不是保护我们的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: People got angry and they sued Sony.  However, they made a mistake.  They focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this scheme, but only on the secondary evils of the various methods that Sony used.  So Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the future, when it attacks our freedom, it will not do those other things.
zh_CN: 人们愤怒了并起诉 Sony。不过，他们犯了个错误。他们的关注点不是谴责这种恶意行为的目的，而只是那些次要的、Sony 使用的恶意手段。因此，Sony 和解了这些诉讼并保证在将来——他们再侵犯用户自由时——不再使用这些手段。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, because if you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all.  Even if you were using Windows, there's a key on the keyboard&mdash;if you remembered every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn't install the software.  But of course it's hard to remember that every time; you're going to slip up some day.  This shows the kind of thing we've had to deal with.
zh_CN: 实际上，那个 corrupt disk 的方案并不算坏，因为如果你使用的不是 Windows 系统，它就根本没有用。即使你使用的是 Windows 系统，键盘上有个按键&mdash;&mdash;如果你每次都记得按住它，那么那张碟片就不会安装软件。但是由于要每次都记得还是比较难的；很可能有一次你忘了。这就是我们要对付的事情。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Fortunately music DRM is receding.  Even the main record companies sell downloads without DRM.  But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM on books.
zh_CN: 值得庆幸的是，音乐的 DRM 正在萎缩。即使主要的唱片公司也在销售不带 DRM 的可下载音乐。但是我们看到书籍的 DRM 正在卷土重来。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of book readers&mdash;freedom to do things such as borrow a book from the public library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used book store, or buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I buy books&mdash;we've got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that we're doing.)
zh_CN: 你看，出版商想要从读者手里把传统的自由拿走&mdash;这些自由包括从公共图书馆借书，把书借给朋友；把书卖给二手书店或者用现金买书（我只那样买书&mdash;&mdash;我们不能成全“老大哥”监控我们的诱惑。）

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it as many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of.
zh_CN: 即使是拥有书籍的时间和阅读书籍的次数之自由，他们也计划夺走。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The way they do it is with DRM.  They knew that so many people read books and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they didn't believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these freedoms&mdash;there would be too much opposition.  Democracy is sick, but once in a while people manage to demand something.  So they came up with a two-stage plan.
zh_CN: 他们使用的方法就是 DRM。他们知道读书的人数目巨大，夺取这些自由会激起公愤；他们也知道他们无法通过金钱购买一个专门废除这些自由的法律&mdash;&mdash;反对的声音会太强。虽然民主不那么健康，但是时不时人们还是会设法争取一些权利。所以，他们分两个阶段开始了计划。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: First, take away these freedoms from e-books, and second, convince people to switch from paper books to e-books.  They've succeeded with stage 1.
zh_CN: 第一阶段，夺走电子书的相关自由；第二阶段，说服人们使用电子书而不用纸质书。第一阶段他们已经成功了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in New Zealand, that was part of the year-ago Copyright Act; censorship on software that can break DRM was part of that law.  That's an unjust provision; it's got to be repealed.
zh_CN: 在美国，他们使用的是数字千禧版权法案；在新西兰，是一年前的版权法案的一部分，对破解 DRM 软件的审核就是该法案的一部分。这是不公正的条款：它应该被推翻。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to ebooks; that didn't go so well.
zh_CN: 第二阶段是劝说人们使用电子书而不用印刷书；这个阶段进展不是很顺利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of ebooks really popular if they started it with my biography.  So they found an author and the author asked me if I'd cooperate, and I said &ldquo;Only if this e-book is published without encryption, without DRM.&rdquo; The publisher wouldn't go along with that, and I just stuck to it&mdash;I said no.  Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this&mdash;in fact willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four freedoms&mdash;so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on paper.
zh_CN: 2001 年，有个出版商觉得如果有我的传记作为开篇会让他们的电子书系列变得流行。因此，他们找到一个作家来问我是否可以合作，我说&ldquo;只有该电子书以非加密、不带 DRM 的方式出版才可以&rdquo;。出版商不接受，我也很坚持&mdash;&mdash;我说不。最后，我们找到另一家愿意这么做的出版商&mdash;&mdash;事实上，愿意使用自由许可证出版会给你四个自由&mdash;&mdash;书出版了，并且卖出大量纸质版本。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But in any case, e-books failed at the beginning of this decade.  People just didn't want to read them very much.  And I said, &ldquo;they will try again.&rdquo; We saw an amazing number of news articles about electronic ink (or is it electronic paper, I can never remember which), and it occurred to me probably the reason there's so many is the publishers want us to think about this.  They want us to be eager for the next generation of e-book readers.
zh_CN: 无论怎么看，电子书在这个十年开始时都失败了。人们就是不怎么爱看电子书。我就说，&ldquo;他们还会再来的&rdquo;。我们看到大量关于电子墨显的新闻（或者是电子纸的，我有点记不清了），对我来说有这么多的新闻可能是出版商想要大家往这方面想。他们想让我们渴望下一代电子书阅读器。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now they're upon us.  Things like the Sony Shreader (its official name is the Sony Reader, but if you put on 'sh' it explains what it's designed to do to your books), and the <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Amazon Swindle</a>, designed to swindle you out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing.  Of course, they call it the Kindle which is what it's going to do to your books.
zh_CN: 现在看我们自己了。象 Sony Shreader （官方名字是 Sony Reader（阅读器），我们加上了 'sh' 来说明它的作用是碎纸）和 <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Amazon Swindle</a> 都是设计成骗你在不知不觉中失去传统的阅读自由。当然，他们给它的名字是 Kindle（点燃），正像它要把你的书都烧掉。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious as Microsoft Windows.  They both have spy features, they both have Digital Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors.
zh_CN: Kindle 是一个极度恶意的产品，差不多和 Microsoft Windows 一样恶劣。它们都有间谍功能，都有数字限制管理，都有后门。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to buy it from Amazon<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a>, and Amazon requires you to identify yourself, so they know everything that you've bought.
zh_CN: 对 Kindle 来说，买书的唯一方式就是从 Amazon<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a> 购买，然后 Amazon 会要求你确认身份，那么他们就能知道你买的一切。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can't lend the book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can't lend it either.
zh_CN: 其次，就是数字限制管理，这样你就不能把书借给别人，也不能把书卖给旧书店，而且图书馆也不能把书借出去。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And then there's the back door, which we found out about about three months ago, because Amazon used it.  Amazon sent a command to all the Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984 by George Orwell.  Yes, they couldn't have picked a more ironic book to erase.  So that's how we know that Amazon has a back door with which it can erase books remotely.
zh_CN: 再次是后门。Amazon 使用后门，所以三个月前我们发现它有后门。Amazon 向所有的 Kindle 阅读器发送了删除一本书的指令，这本书就是 George Orwell 写的 1984。是的，他们再也找不到比这本书更具有讽刺意味的书了。这样，我们就知道了 Amazon 有一个远程删书的后门。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it's like Microsoft Windows.  Maybe Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that whatever malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it tomorrow.
zh_CN: 他们还能做什么呢，鬼知道？也许它就像 Microsoft Windows。也许 Amazon 可以远程升级软件，就是说现在没有的恶意功能，他们总可以在明天放进去。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This is intolerable&mdash;any one of these restrictions is intolerable.  They want to create a world where nobody lends books to anybody anymore.
zh_CN: 是可忍，孰不可忍&mdash;&mdash;这一切都是不能接受的限制。他们想要一个没人能借书给别人的世界。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the shelf.  It's not that your friend doesn't read, but his books are all inside a device, and of course he can't lend you those books.  The only way he could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his whole library, which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to do.  So there goes friendship for people who love books.
zh_CN: 想象一下，你拜访一个朋友，而他们的书架上一本书也没有。不是你朋友不读书，只是她的书都在一个设备里，但是她显然不能出借这些书。她出借书的唯一方式就是把整个图书馆都给你，这个事情就变得非常荒诞了。爱读书之人的友谊就是这样开展的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Make sure that you inform people what this device implies.  It means other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will be acting like a jerk toward them.  Spread the word preemptively.  This device is your enemy.  It's the enemy of everyone who reads.  The people who don't recognize that are the people who are thinking so short-term that they don't see it.  It's our job to help them see beyond the momentary convenience to the implications of this device.
zh_CN: 请一定要告诉人们这种设备意味着什么。它意味着其他读书人不再是你的朋友，因为你的表现看起来就象一个怪人。请提前说明，这个设备是个敌人。它是所有读书人的敌人。没有意识到这一点的人是过于短视，而无法看到这个。我们的任务就是帮助他们透过金钱的便利看到此设备的本质。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they are not designed to take away our freedom.  Strictly speaking, it is possible to have an e-book reader:
zh_CN: 如果数字书不是设计成剥夺读者自由的形式，那么我一点也不反对发行数字书。严格来说，电子书阅读器可以设计成：

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: that is not designed to attack you,
zh_CN: 不攻击你，

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: which runs free software and not proprietary software,
zh_CN: 运行自由软件而不是专有软件，

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: which doesn't have DRM,
zh_CN: 没有 DRM，

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: which doesn't make people identify yourself to get a book,
zh_CN: 不用人们表明身份就可以买书，

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: which doesn't have a back door, [and]
zh_CN: 没有后门，[而且]

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: which doesn't restrict what you can do with the files on your machine.
zh_CN: 不限制人们如何处理机器里的文件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's possible, but the big companies really pushing e-books are doing it to attack our freedom, and we mustn't stand for that.  This is what governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack our freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive than ever before.
zh_CN: 这是可能的，但是真正推动电子书的大公司就是要对我们的自由发起攻击，而我们必须要挺住。这就是政府和大企业狼狈为奸对我们的自由发起攻击，他们让版权更严苛、更恶劣，这是从来没有过的限制。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power less.  Here are my specific proposals.
zh_CN: 我们应该做什么？政府应该限制版权的权利。下面是我的具体方案。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: First of all, there is the dimension of time.  I propose copyright should last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a work.
zh_CN: 首先是时长。我建议版权应该持续十年，从作品发表算起。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don't have copies.  It doesn't matter to us whether we would have been allowed to copy our copies that we don't have, so I figure we might as well let the authors have as much time as it takes to arrange publication, and then start the clock.
zh_CN: 为什么从发表时间算起？因为在那之前，我们没法复制。如果我们没法复制，那么允不允许有复制权就无从谈起，所以我觉得我们也应该让作者有足够的时间来安排发表，然后再开始计算版权的时间。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But why ten years? I don't know about in this country, but in the US, the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter.  Nowadays almost all books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print within three.  So ten years is more than three times the usual publication cycle&mdash;that should be plenty comfortable.
zh_CN: 但是为什么是十年？我不清楚这个国家，但就美国来说，出版和发表的周期越来越短。现在几乎所有现存书籍都是近两年的，三年的书已经都不再印了。所以十年已经比正常出版周期的三倍都长了&mdash;&mdash;这应该足够合理了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But not everybody agrees.  I once proposed this in a panel discussion with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer next to me said &ldquo;Ten years? No way.  Anything more than five years is intolerable.&rdquo; You see, he had a legal dispute with his publisher.  His books seemed to be out of print, but the publisher wouldn't admit it.  The publisher was using the copyright on his own book to stop him from distributing copies himself, which he wanted to do so people could read it.
zh_CN: 但是不是所有的人都同意这么做。有一次，我在一个论坛上和小说家讨论此事，坐在我旁边的奇幻作家说 &ldquo;十年？绝对不行。超过五年就无法忍受。&rdquo;你看，他和出版商有一个法律纠纷。他的书不再印刷，但出版商不承认。出版商在利用作者的版权来阻止作者自己复制分发，作者只是要让人们可以读到他的书。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This is what every artist starts out wanting&mdash;wanting to distribute her work so it will get read and appreciated.  Very few make a lot of money.  That tiny fraction face the danger of being morally corrupted, like J.K. Rowling.
zh_CN: 这正是每个艺术家都希望的&mdash;&mdash;希望能分发她的作品，这样人们就可以阅读和欣赏。很少有作家赚到大钱，而这小部分人面临着道德腐败的危险，就像 J.K. Rowling<sup><a href="#TransNote5">5</a></sup>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: J.K. Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had bought her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it.  So in response I call for a boycott of Harry Potter books.  But I don't say you shouldn't read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher.  I just say you shouldn't buy them.
zh_CN: J.K. Rowling，在加拿大获得一项针对在书店卖到她的书的读者的禁令，命令他们不许读她的书。因此，作为回应我呼吁人们抵制哈利·波特的书。但是我没有说你不应该读哈利·波特的书；这个留给作者和出版商吧。我只是说你不应该买这些书。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It's few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted in this way.  Most of them don't get anywhere near that, and continue wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work to be appreciated.
zh_CN: 少数发了财的作家就这样变得腐败了。大多数作家远没有达到那样的地步，他们的诉求还是一如既往：他们希望自己的作品被人欣赏。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping him.  He realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely to ever do him any good.
zh_CN: 他想分发自己的书，而版权阻止他这么做。他意识到超过五年的版权不太可能会对他有什么好处。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won't be against it.  I propose ten as a first stab at the problem.  Let's reduce it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could adjust it after that.  I don't say I think ten years is the exact right number&mdash;I don't know.
zh_CN: 如果人们更愿意版权是五年期，我不会反对。建议十年是我对这个问题的第一步方案。先减到十年，观察一段时间，然后看看我们怎么调整。我没有说我认为十年就是准确的期限&mdash;&mdash;这个我知道。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should copyright cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works.
zh_CN: 宽度维度怎么办？版权应该涉及哪些活动呢？我分出了三类作品。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a practical job in your life.  This includes software, recipes, educational works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you can think of.  These works should be free.
zh_CN: 首先，功能性作品，你用它们来完成生活中的实际工作。这包括软件、菜谱、教育作品、参看书、字体以及其他你可以想到的类似的东西。这些作品应该是自由的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can't change the work to suit you, you don't control your life.  Once you have changed the work to suit you, then you've got to be free to publish it&mdash;publish your version&mdash;because there will be others who will want the changes you've made.
zh_CN: 但是不是所有的人都同意这么做。有一次，我在一个论坛上和小说家讨论此事，坐在我旁边的奇幻作家说 &ldquo;十年？绝对不行。超过五年就无法忍受。&rdquo;你看，他和出版商有一个法律纠纷。他的书不再印刷，但出版商不承认。出版商在利用作者的版权来阻止作者自己复制分发，作者只是要让人们可以读到他的书。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the same four freedoms [for all functional works], not just for software.  And you'll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are always sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free.  Imagine how people would react if the government tried to stamp out so-called &ldquo;recipe piracy.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 这就快速得出结论：用户[对所有功能性作品]必须要有同样的四个自由，不只是对软件。你会注意到对菜谱来说，实际上厨师总是在分享并改进，就像菜谱已经是自由的一样。想象一下，如果政府要打击所谓的 &ldquo;菜谱盗版&rdquo;，人们会怎么反应。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;pirate&rdquo; is pure propaganda.  When people ask me what I think of music piracy, I say &ldquo;As far as I know, when pirates attack they don't do it by playing instruments badly, they do it with arms.  So it's not music &ldquo;piracy,&rdquo; because piracy is attacking ships, and sharing is as far as you get from being the moral equivalent of attacking ships.&rdquo; Attacking ships is bad, sharing with other people is good, so we should firmly denounce that propaganda term &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; whenever we hear it.
zh_CN: &ldquo;盗版&rdquo; 一词纯属鼓吹。当人们问我关于音乐盗版的看法，我说 &ldquo;据我所知，海盗攻击时不是胡乱玩乐器，而是用膀臂。所以没有音乐 &ldquo;盗版&rdquo;，因为海盗攻击的是船舰。分享音乐和攻击船舰在道德上有着云泥之别&rdquo;。攻击船舰很恶劣，和他人分享很友善，因此我们要坚决反击用 &ldquo;盗版&rdquo; 一词做的鼓吹，每次听到都要反击。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: People might have objected twenty years ago: &ldquo;If we don't give up our freedom, if we don't let the publishers of these works control us, the works won't get made and that will be a horrible disaster.&rdquo; Now, looking at the free software community, and all the recipes that circulate, and reference works like Wikipedia&mdash;we are even starting to see free textbooks being published&mdash;we know that that fear is misguided.
zh_CN: 二十年前人们也许曾经反对过：&ldquo;如果我们不放弃自由，如果我们不让出版商控制我们，那么就不会有作品，就会是个可怕的灾难。&rdquo;现在，看看自由软件社区，看看所有在流传的菜谱，看看诸如 Wikipedia 之类的参考资料作品&mdash;&mdash;我们甚至开始看到自由的教科书就要出版&mdash;&mdash;我们就知道那种恐惧只是误导。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that otherwise the works won't get made.  There are lots of ways to encourage them to get made if we want more&mdash;lots of ways that are consistent with and respect our freedom.  In this category, they should all be free.
zh_CN: 没有必要绝望，没有必要放弃自由，也不要认为不这样做的话就不会有作品被创作。如果愿意，有很多方法可以鼓励人们创造更多作品&mdash;&mdash;有很多方法能和自由保持一致并尊重自由。这类作品都应该自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But what about the second category, of works that say what certain people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, and various other things?<a href="#footnote3">[3]</a> To publish a modified version of somebody else's statement of what he thought is misrepresenting [that] somebody.  That's not particularly a contribution to society.
zh_CN: 第二类作品，关于某些人的思想，比如回忆录、文集、科学论文等作品，又该如何呢？<a href="#footnote3">[3]</a>发表其他人陈述和想法的修改版是在曲解[那个]人。那并不是对社会做贡献。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies.
zh_CN: 因此，某种减弱的版权系统是可行和可接受的：一切商业使用由版权处理，一切修改由版权处理，但是所有人都有自由非商业地再分发同样的拷贝。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: [2015 note: publishing scientific papers under the CC Attribution license (CC-BY) is widely done, in accessible journals and arXiv.org, and it seems that permitting publication of modified versions does not cause any problem.  So that license is what I now recommend for scholarly publications.]
zh_CN: [2015 注：以 CC Attribution 许可证 (CC-BY) 发表科学论文已经在常规期刊和 arXiv.org 广泛使用，看来允许发表修改版没有任何问题。因此我推荐学术出版使用此许可证。]

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all published works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates the War on Sharing&mdash;what creates the vicious propaganda that sharing is theft, that sharing is like being a pirate and attacking ships.  Absurdities, but absurdities backed by a lot of money that has corrupted our governments.  We need to end the War on Sharing; we need to legalize sharing exact copies of any published work.
zh_CN: 这个自由是我们必须为所有出版作品争取的最少自由，因为剥夺这个自由就是产生“分享战争”的根源&mdash;&mdash;就是产生“分享即盗窃”之类恶毒鼓吹的根源，就是认为分享和海盗攻击舰船一样的根源。那样的鼓吹非但荒谬而且还让巨资腐蚀掉的政府支持。我们需要结束“分享战争”；我们需要让分享已出版作品的原版合法化。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the second category of works, that's all we need; we don't need to make them free.  Therefore I think it's OK to have a reduced copyright system which covers commercial use and all modifications.  And this will provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less the same (usually inadequate) way as the present system.  You've got to keep in mind [that] the present system, except for superstars, is usually totally inadequate.
zh_CN: 对于第二类作品，这就是我们需要的；我们不需要此类作品自由。因此我觉得有一个减弱的版权系统来处理此类作品的商业使用和修改版是可以的。这样的系统会大致（通常是不太充分地）给作者提供一个和目前系统差不多的收入来源。你要清楚一点，目前的系统，除了超级明星，通常是完全不充分的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to decide what to think about modifications.
zh_CN: 艺术类和娱乐类的作品又如何呢？这里，我花了一些时间才决定如何处理此类作品的修改版。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity and modifying it could destroy that.  Of course, copyright doesn't necessarily stop works from being butchered that way.  Hollywood does it all the time.  On the other hand, modifying the work can be a contribution to art.  It makes possible the folk process which leads to things which are beautiful and rich.
zh_CN: 你知道，一方面，艺术作品有一种艺术完整性，一修改就被破坏了。当然，版权没有必要阻止糟踏作品。好莱坞一直都在糟踏作品。另一方面，修改作品也可能是对艺术做贡献。民间流传就是让艺术变得优美而丰富的过程。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them in different ways, and made important works of literature.  If today's copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and those plays wouldn't have been written.
zh_CN: 即使我们只看著名的作家：想想莎士比亚，他就是从只有几十年历史的作品里借鉴了不少故事，并灵活使用而创作了重要的文学作品。如果那时候就有今天的版权法，莎士比亚的所作所为要被禁止，他的戏剧也就无从说起了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a contribution to art, but it's not desperately urgent in most cases.  If you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait that long.  Not like the present-day copyright that makes you wait maybe 75 years, or 95 years.  In Mexico you might have to wait almost 200 years in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a hundred years after the author dies.  This is insane, but ten years, as I've proposed copyright should last, that people can wait.
zh_CN: 但是最后我意识到修改艺术作品可能会是艺术贡献，不过大多数情况下都不是非常迫切。如果你必须等版权十年后过期，你等得起。而不象今天的版权让你一等就是 75 年，甚至 95 年。在墨西哥，大多数情况下你可能需要等差不多 200 年，因为墨西哥的版权在作者死后 100 年才过期。这个太荒谬，但是我建议的是十年版权期限，人们等得起。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers commercial use and modification, but everyone's got to be free to non-commercially redistribute exact copies.  After ten years it goes into the public domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing their modified versions.
zh_CN: 因此，我建议用同样的部分减弱的版权来覆盖商业使用和修改版，但是人人都有自由分发原始版的非商业副本。十年之后，此类作品进入公有领域，人们就可以通过发布自己的修改版来为艺术做出贡献。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One other thing: if you're going to take little pieces out of a bunch of works and rearrange them into something totally different, that should just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to promote art, not to obstruct art.  It's stupid to apply copyright to using snippets like that&mdash;it's self-defeating.  It's a kind of distortion that you'd only get when the government is under the control of the publishers of the existing successful works, and has totally lost sight of its intended purpose.
zh_CN: 还有一件事：如果你要从许多作品中汲取一小部分来组成完全不同的作品，那么这是合法的，因为版权的目的是推动艺术而非阻碍艺术。把版权应用于作品一小部分的使用是愚蠢的&mdash;&mdash;正如搬起石头砸自己的脚。它是一种扭曲，只有在政府被现存成功作品的出版商控制之下，你才会看到这种愚蠢，这样的政府失去了对版权本来目的的洞察。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That's what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing copies on the Internet must be legal.  Sharing is good.  Sharing builds the bonds of society.  To attack sharing is to attack society.
zh_CN: 这就是我的建议，它特别意味着在互联网上分享副本必须是合法的活动。分享是好事。分享建立社会纽带。攻击分享就是攻击社会。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people who share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this is evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend basic ideas of justice (but that's not a coincidence).  The reason is because the purpose is evil.  Sharing is good and the government should encourage sharing.
zh_CN: 因此，任何时候政府提出攻击人们分享、阻止人们分享的建议，我们必须意识到那是邪恶，不仅是因为这些被提议的手段几乎毫无例外都是违反基本的公正理念（就这点也不是巧合）。原因是其邪恶的目的。分享是好事，而政府应该鼓励分享。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But copyright did after all have a useful purpose.  Copyright as a means to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn't fit in with the technology we use.  It interferes with all the vital freedoms for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but the goal of promoting the arts is still desirable.  So in addition to the partly reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a copyright system, I propose two other methods.
zh_CN: 不过，版权终究还有一个有益的目的。带有这个好意的版权目前出了问题，因为它没能适应我们使用的技术。它干扰了所有读者、听众、观众、不管是谁的关键自由，但是它推动艺术的目的还是我们需要的。因此，除了部分减弱的版权系统继续作为版权系统之外，我还提议另外两个方法。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <a id="tax-money-for-artists">One [works via] taxes</a>&mdash;distribute tax money directly to artists.  This could be a special tax, perhaps on Internet connectivity, or it could come from general revenue, because it won't be that much money in total, not if it's distributed in an efficient way.  To distribute it efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to popularity.  It should be based on popularity, because we don't want bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear proportion.
zh_CN: <a id="tax-money-for-artists">一个[使用]税收</a>&mdash;&mdash;直接把税收分配给艺术家。这是一个特别的税种，也许针对互联网，也许通过生产总值，因为如果能有效分配的话，该税的总额不多。为了推进艺术而有效分配意味着不是按流行程度线性等比分配。它应该基于流行程度，因为我们不想让官僚机构按自己的想法来决定该支持哪个艺术家、该忽略哪个艺术家，不过基于流行程度并不意味着要线性等比例。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, which you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is required to participate, and then take the cube root.  The cube root looks like this: it means basically that [the payment] tapers off after a while.
zh_CN: 我建议度量各个艺术家的流行程度，我们可以采用抽样民意调查，不要求所有人都参与，然后对结果取立方根。立方根是这样：[支付的金额]随流行程度逐渐变少。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist B, with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a thousand times.
zh_CN: 如果超级巨星甲比艺术家乙流行一千倍，那么根据这个系统，甲得的钱是乙的十倍，而不是一千倍。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means that if we wanted B to get enough to live on we're going to have to make A tremendously rich.  This is wasteful use of the tax money&mdash;it shouldn't be done.
zh_CN: 如果是线性等比例分配，甲就是乙的一千倍，这意味着如果我们想要乙维持足够的生活水平，我们就要让甲变得超级富有。这是对税收的浪费&mdash;&mdash;不应该那么做。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of all the superstars will be a small fraction of the [total] money.  Most of the money will go to support a large number of fairly successful artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular artists.  Thus the system will use money a lot more efficiently than the existing system.
zh_CN: 但是如果我们让曲线逐渐变缓，那么好了，每个巨星比一般成功的艺术家多了不少钱，但是所有巨星的总额只会占[总]金额的一小部分。大部分金钱会支持大多数相当成功、相当流行的艺术家。这样，该系统对金钱的分配比现有系统高效得多。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The existing system is regressive.  It actually gives far, far more per record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else.  The money is extremely badly used.  The result is we'd actually be paying a lot less this way.  I hope that's enough to mollify some of these people who have a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes&mdash;one that I don't share, because I believe in a welfare state.
zh_CN: 现有系统是累退税<sup><a href="#TransNote6">6</a></sup>。它实际上给一个巨星的每张唱片的钱都要比其他人高太多。这样用钱太糟糕。我提议的方式实际上会让我们花费少得多的钱。我希望这个足以平复那些骨子里对税收怀有敌意的人的不愤&mdash;&mdash;我们和他们不一样，因为我相信福利国家。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments.  Suppose every player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the artist who made the work you're currently playing or the last one you played.  This money would be delivered anonymously to those artists.  I think a lot of people would push that button fairly often.
zh_CN: 我的另一个建议是志愿支付。假设每个播放器都有一个你可以一按就给正在播放或刚播放过的艺术家一块钱的按钮，这些钱将匿名地转给这些艺术家。我觉得许多人会经常按这个按钮。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every day, and we wouldn't miss that much money.  It's not that much money for us, I'm pretty sure.  Of course, there are poor people who couldn't afford to push it ever, and it's OK if they don't.  We don't need to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists.  There are enough people who are not poor to do the job just fine.  I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people really love certain art and are really happy to support the artists.
zh_CN: 例如，我们每个人都负担得起每天按一次，我们不会担心那点钱。对我们来说，那是小钱，我很确定。当然，也有穷人一次都按不起，那也没问题。我们不需要压榨穷人来支持艺术家。不是穷人的人够多了。我确信很多人真的喜欢某些艺术，而且真的很高兴能支持这些艺术家。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: An idea just came to me.  The player could also give you a certificate of having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up how many times you had done it and give you a certificate that says &ldquo;I sent so much to these artists.&rdquo; There are various ways we could encourage people who want to do it.
zh_CN: 我刚刚又有了一个念头。播放器也可以给你发支持了这个那个的证书，甚至可以为你做了多少次记数并在证书上说&ldquo;我为此艺术家贡献了xxx&rdquo;。有很多方法可以鼓励那些想要支持的人们。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and kind: &ldquo;Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? It's only a dollar&mdash;you'll never miss it and don't you love what they're doing? Push the button!&rdquo; It will make people feel good, and they'll think &ldquo;Yeah, I love what I just watched.  I'll send a dollar.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 例如，我们可以组织一个友善的公关活动：&ldquo;你今天给艺术家一块钱了吗？为什么没有？一块钱而已&mdash;&mdash;你不会在乎的。难道你不喜欢这些艺术家？只需轻轻一按！&rdquo;这会让人感觉好棒，他们会想&ldquo;是啊，我喜欢我看到的。我赞一块钱。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This is already starting to work to some extent.  There's a Canadian singer who used to be called Jane Siberry.  She put her music on her website and invited people to download it and pay whatever amount they wished.  She reported getting an average of more than a dollar per copy, which is interesting because the major record companies charge just under a dollar per copy.  By letting people decide whether and how much to pay, she got more&mdash;she got even more per visitor who was actually downloading something.  But this might not even count whether there was an effect of bringing more people to come, and [thus] increasing the total number that this average was against.
zh_CN: 这个已经在某种程度上开始了。有个叫做 Jane Siberry 的加拿大歌手。她把自己的歌放到网站上并让人们下载，你愿意付多少钱都行。她报告说平均一个拷贝高于一块钱，这就有意思了，因为主流唱片公司一张唱片比一块钱少。通过让人们自己决定是否付费和付多少，她挣到更多&mdash;&mdash;她平均从每个实际下载的访客那里挣到多。但是这个可能还没有考虑会有更多访客的效应，[因此]总数会更多。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So it can work, but it's a pain in the neck under present circumstances.  You've got to have a credit card to do it, and that means you can't do it anonymously.  And you've got to go find where you're going to pay, and the payment systems for small amounts, they're not very efficient, so the artists are only getting half of it.  If we set up a good system for this, it would work far, far better.
zh_CN: 所以，这个行得通，但是目前还有一个痛点。你必须要有信用卡才能付钱，这意味着你无法匿名。而且你还要找到在哪里付钱，小额支付也不是那么高效，因此艺术家只得到一半的钱。如果我们为此建立一个优质的系统，那么运行起来会好得多。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So these are my two suggestions.
zh_CN: 这就是我的两个建议。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And in mecenatglobal.org, you can find another scheme that combines aspects of the two, which was invented by Francis Muguet and designed to fit in with existing legal systems better to make it easier to enact.
zh_CN: 在 mecenatglobal.org 网站，你可以看到另一种把两个策略结合在一起的方法。那个方法是 Francis Muguet 发明的，它和现有的法律系统结合得更好，也就更容易实施。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Be careful of proposals to &ldquo;compensate the rights holders,&rdquo; because when they say &ldquo;compensate,&rdquo; they're trying to presume that if you have appreciated a work, you now have a specific debt to somebody, and that you have to &ldquo;compensate&rdquo; that somebody.  When they say &ldquo;rights holders,&rdquo; it's supposed to make you think it's supporting artists while in fact it's going to the publishers&mdash;the same publishers who basically exploit all the artists (except the few that you've all heard of, who are so popular that they have clout).
zh_CN: 请小心那些 &ldquo;补偿权利所有者&rdquo; 的提议，因为当有人说 &ldquo;补偿&rdquo; 时，他们就在假定如果你欣赏某个作品，那么你就欠了某人的债，这样你就要 &ldquo;补偿&rdquo; 某人。当有人说 &ldquo;权利所有者&rdquo; 时，他们在假定你想的是支持艺术家，而事实上他们说的是出版商&mdash;&mdash;就是那些剥削所有艺术家的出版商（除了那些知名的艺术家，他们太受欢迎因而有了影响力）。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We don't owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to &ldquo;compensate.&rdquo; [But] supporting the arts is still a useful thing to do.  That was the motivation for copyright back when copyright fit in with the technology of the day.  Today copyright is a bad way to do it, but it's still good to do it other ways that respect our freedom.
zh_CN: 我们没有亏欠什么；我们无需 &ldquo;补偿&rdquo; 任何人。[但是]支持艺术是一件有益的事情。这正是版权在版权和技术匹配时代的动机。今天的版权做得不好，但是用其他尊重自由的方法来支持艺术仍然是一件好事。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright Act.  They shouldn't replace the three strikes punishment<a href="#footnote4">[4]</a>, because sharing is good, and they've got to get rid of the censorship for the software to break DRM.  Beware of ACTA&mdash;they're trying to negotiate a treaty between various countries, for all of these countries to attack their citizens, and we don't know how because they won't tell us.
zh_CN: 请要求他们改变新西兰版权法案的两个恶意部分。他们不应该把三震惩罚<a href="#footnote4">[4]</a> 替换掉，因为分享是好事，再者就是他们应该去掉对破解 DRM 软件的审查。请警惕 ACTA&mdash;&mdash;他们在和许多国家进行磋商，目的是让这些国家都对自己的公民下手，我们不知道详情，因为他们也不会告诉我们。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Footnotes
zh_CN: 脚注

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: In 2010, the encryption system for digital video output was <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/archive/hdcp-master-key-confirmed-blu-ray-content-vulnerable-254650"> definitively cracked</a>.
zh_CN: 在 2010 年，数字视频输出的加密系统被 <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/archive/hdcp-master-key-confirmed-blu-ray-content-vulnerable-254650">最终破解。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: That was true at the time.  As of 2018, it is possible to load books from other sources, but the device reports the name of the book being read to Amazon servers; thus, Amazon knows every book that you read on the device, regardless of where you got the book.
zh_CN: 这在当时是对的。在 2018 年，从其他地方加载书籍变得可能，但是设备还是会向 Amazon 服务器汇报已读的书名；因此，Amazon 还是知道你读的每一本书，无论你在哪里得到的书。

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: 2015: I included scientific papers because I thought that publishing modified versions of someone else's paper would cause harm; however, publishing physics and math papers under the Creative Commons Attribution License on <a href="https://arxiv.org/">arXiv.org</a> and many libre journals seems to have no problems.  Thus, I subsequently concluded that scientific papers ought to be free.
zh_CN: 2015 年：我把科学论文也包含进来，因为我曾觉得发表他人论文的修改版不是太好；然而，用 Creative Commons Attribution 许可证在 <a href="https://arxiv.org/">arXiv.org</a> 和许多自由刊物上发表物理和数学论文看来并没有导致问题。因此，我随后得出结论科学论文应该自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: New Zealand had enacted a system of punishment without trial for Internet users accused of copying; then, facing popular protest, the government did not implement it, and announced a plan to implement a modified unjust punishment system.  The point here was that they should not proceed to implement a replacement&mdash;rather, they should have no such system.  However, the words I used don't say this clearly.
zh_CN: 新西兰要执行一个对被指控复制的互联网用户不进行庭审就惩罚的系统；然后面临大规模抗议，政府没有实施该惩罚系统，并宣称计划执行一个修改版的非正义惩罚系统。重点是他们不应该继续计划执行类似的惩罚系统&mdash;&mdash;而是反过来，他们应该剔除这样的系统。不过，我的用词没有清楚地说明这一点。

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: The New Zealand government subsequently implemented the punishment scheme more or less as originally planned.
zh_CN: 新西兰政府随后实施地惩罚系统和原来的系统差不多。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. type: Content of: <div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*
zh_CN: <h3>译注</h3>
    <ol>
    <li id="TransNote1">nz-libs：一个著名新西兰邮件列表，讨论关于图书馆和信息服务。</li>
    <li id="TransNote2">这里 Richard 用了两个双关英语，表示幽默。</li>
    <li id="TransNote3">这里 Windows 是个双关英语，既表示 Windows 操作系统，也表示窗户。</li>
    <li id="TransNote4">Statute of Anne：指安妮女王时于 1709 年通过的《版权法》。</li>
    <li id="TransNote5">J.K. Rowling：英国作家，创作了哈利·波特。</li>
    <li id="TransNote6">regressive system：累退税，是指高收入纳税人交纳的税收在其收入中的比例低于低收入纳税人的税收。</li>
    </ol>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
zh_CN: 请将有关自由软件基金会(FSF) &amp; GNU的一般性问题发送到<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>。也可以通过<a href="/contact/">其他联系方法</a>联系自由软件基金会(FSF)。有关失效链接或其他错误和建议，请发送邮件到<a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>。

note: TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a hr
en: Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.
zh_CN: 我们尽最大努力来提供精准和高质量的翻译，但难免会存在错误和不足。如果您在这方面有评论或一般性的建议，请发送至 <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p><p>关于进行协调与提交翻译的更多信息参见 <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">《译者指南》</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.
zh_CN: 本页面使用 <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a> 授权。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
zh_CN: <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2021，2022。

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
zh_CN: 最后更新：
