misinterpreting-copyright.html - en to zh_CN translation catalogue (96 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Misinterpreting Copyright - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 对版权的误解 - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: Misinterpreting Copyright&mdash;A Series of Errors
zh_CN: 对版权的误解&mdash;一系列的错误

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by <a href="https://stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a>
zh_CN: <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">理查德·斯托曼</a> 著

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law.  Under the US Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users&mdash;those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software&mdash;not for the sake of publishers or authors.  Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them &ldquo;for their own benefit,&rdquo; the US government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.
zh_CN: 在版权领域，正在发生着一些奇怪并且危险的事情。根据美国宪法，版权的存在是为了让那些读书、听音乐、看电影或是用软件的用户受益，而非为了出版商、发行商或作者。版权法律中的种种约束都是号称“为用户着想”，不过现实中，人们却不断地拒绝、违抗着这些束缚。面对公众的反抗，美国政府反而继续增加限制，用新的严刑酷法来恐吓大众，以便让他们听话。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United States copyright law: the US Constitution.
zh_CN: 版权政策何以发展到如此，以至于与它的初衷背道而驰？ 而我们又该如何让其回归正途？ 要理解这些，我们必须追本溯源，来看看美国版权法的基础：美国宪法。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Copyright in the US Constitution
zh_CN: 美国宪法下的版权思维

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed&mdash;and rejected.  The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress.  The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):
zh_CN: 起草美国宪法时，“作者独享其作品的版权”这一观点被提出时就遭到了反对。于是美国的立国者采用了一个完全不同的前提 ── 版权并非是作者的自然权利，而是为了社会的发展，人为做出的一种让步。下面的一段话引自美国宪法，表明了美国宪法中，对于版权的态度（见第一条，第八款）。

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: [Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
zh_CN: [国会有权]保障著作家和发明家对其著作和发明在一定期限内的专有权利，以促进科学和实用艺术之进步。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works.  For example, in <em>Fox Film v. Doyal</em>, the court said,
zh_CN: 美国联邦最高法院也曾不止一次地强调，推动社会发展意味着让版权作品的用户受益。例如，在<em>福克斯电影公司诉Doyal案</em>中，法院就曾表示，

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
zh_CN: 美国的唯一利益和授予【版权】垄断的主要目的在于使公众从创作者的劳动中获益。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not <b>required</b> by the Constitution, only <b>permitted</b> as an option&mdash;and why it is supposed to last for &ldquo;limited times.&rdquo; If copyright were a natural right, something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse of time from its construction.
zh_CN: 这一根本性的决定解释了为什么版权并非是宪法所<b>要求</b>的，而仅仅是宪法<b>允许</b>将其作为一种选择──以及为什么它被认为仅有“一定期限”。假如版权是一种自然权利，那么这种权利就应理所当然地被作者享有，也就没有什么人或组织可以在一定时期后，公正地终止这一权利。倘若这种自然权利能够如此被公正地终止，那么无异于让每个人的房子，在一定时期后变为公共财产。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The &ldquo;copyright bargain&rdquo;
zh_CN: &ldquo;版权交易&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake.  Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more.  In effect, the government spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works.  Legal scholars call this concept the &ldquo;copyright bargain.&rdquo; It is like a government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers' money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our money.
zh_CN: 版权体系会保证出版商和创作者的特权，从而使他们受益；但这么做的目的却绝非为了他们自身的利益。之所以这么做，更多地是为了能够影响这些人的行为：鼓励创作者更多地创造并发布其作品。由此带来的结果是，政府以公众的身份做交易，通过牺牲公众的自然权利，为公众换来更多的出版作品。法律学者将这一概念称为“版权交易”或“以权购版”（copyright bargain）。这就好比政府用纳税人的钱，修建高速公路或机场，只不过在版权交易中，政府支付的是我们的自由而非我们的金钱。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public? Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue of copyright policy is part of this question.  If we misunderstand the nature of the question, we will tend to decide the issues badly.
zh_CN: 然而，这样的交易是否真的有利于公众呢？还有很多可选的交易方案，哪个又是最好的呢？版权政策中的每个议点都是这问题的一部分。如果我们曲解了这问题本身，那么我们将会很可能做出糟糕的决策。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors.  In practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of the benefits, though authors may get a small portion.  Thus it is usually the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers.  To better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of copyright powers.  It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as &ldquo;readers,&rdquo; even though using them does not always mean reading, because &ldquo;the users&rdquo; is remote and abstract.
zh_CN: 美国宪法将版权授予创作者本人。而在实际当中，创作者通常将版权转让给出版商。因此，通常是拥有这些权利的出版商受益，而非作者本人──尽管作者也可能从中分得一杯羹。因此，通常是出版商去游说要加强版权所有者的权利。这里为了更好地反映版权方面的实际情况，避免对他们粉饰神化，本文中使用“出版商”来描述版权的所有者，而非“创作者”。并使用“读者”一词来描述版权作品的用户。这并非总是意味着要“读”什么，仅仅是因为“用户”一词太过抽象，远离生活。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The first error: &ldquo;striking a balance&rdquo;
zh_CN: 错误一：&ldquo;寻求一个平衡&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that end.  Readers' interests and publishers' interests are thus qualitatively unequal in priority.  The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.
zh_CN: 以权购版的思维将公众放在第一位：让读者大众获益是其最终目的；这中间，出版商也许会有利可图，但这绝非是最终目的，仅仅是为了达目的而踏出的一步。读者的利益和出版商的利益在优先权上存在着本质的差别。对版权本身目的的一种曲解往往产生于此：将出版商提升到了与读者同等重要的级别上。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It is often said that US copyright law is meant to &ldquo;strike a balance&rdquo; between the interests of publishers and readers.  Those who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to the copyright bargain.
zh_CN: 一种常见的说法是，美国版权法是为了在出版商与读者的利益之间寻求一个平衡。这一说法的支持者们认为，这种解释与美国宪法站在同一立场，仅仅是表述不同；换言之，他们认为这种解释与以权购版等价。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different conceptually, and different in their implications.  The balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests differ in importance only quantitatively, in <em>how much weight</em> we should give them, and in what actions they apply to.  The term &ldquo;stakeholders&rdquo; is often used to frame the issue in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally important.  This view rejects the qualitative distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at the root of the government's participation in the copyright bargain.
zh_CN: 然而，这两种解释方式却相去甚远；不仅概念相异，而且暗含不同。这一“平衡”的观点假定了读者与出版商的利益，在重要性上仅仅是量上的差别。这种观点认为，这无非就是个<em>孰轻孰重</em>的问题，再对不同权重采取不同措施。“股东”一词常被用来塑造这个观点；它假定在制定政策的过程中，每一方的利益都是同等重要的。这一观点否认读者与出版商之间的利益存在着质的差别，然而这种质的差别却是政府参与以权购版交易的根本原因。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great protection for the public in the copyright bargain&mdash;the idea that copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, never in the name of the publishers&mdash;is discarded by the &ldquo;balance&rdquo; interpretation.  Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the &ldquo;balance&rdquo; concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone other than the public.
zh_CN: 这种利益平衡的观点贻害颇深，因为它拒绝强调对公众的最大保护。而在以权购版的概念中，这种保护被不断重申：版权所授予的特权仅仅能够以读者的名义进行修正，而非是以出版商的名义。由于使出版商获益在此也被视为目的之一，那么也就可以以此为名修正版权所涉权利；换言之，“平衡”的观点认为可以以某些人而非公众的名义，修正版权所有者的权利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a practical matter, the consequence of the &ldquo;balance&rdquo; concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law.  The copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms.  The concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from additional privilege.  Unless harm to the readers can be proved, sufficient to &ldquo;outweigh&rdquo; this benefit, we are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they request.
zh_CN: 在实际当中，这种&rdquo;平衡&ldquo;的观点颠倒了这套公正地修正版权法的流程：以权购版将责任放在出版商那里，需要出版商去劝告读者放弃一定程度的自由；“平衡”的观点将这一责任倒置了。简单点说，以“平衡”的观点来看，既然出版商拥有特权，那么基于这种特权而获利则是无可厚非的。除非可以证明这种获利途径会对读者产生伤害，让读者得不偿失，否则，我们很可能得出这样的结论：出版商可以获得任何他们要求的特权。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since the idea of &ldquo;striking a balance&rdquo; between publishers and readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it.
zh_CN: 由于这种所谓的在出版商与读者间&ldquo;寻求一种平衡&rdquo;的观点忽视了读者群本身的重要性，我们必须抛弃它。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Balancing against what?
zh_CN: 谁该跟谁找平衡？

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal&mdash;best for the public, not for the other party in the agreement.
zh_CN: 当政府以公众的名义，为人民购买商品的时候，它有责任为其争取一份最好的交易。这种交易应该对公众而言最划算，而绝非对协议中的另一方。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the public's money.  Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the price down.
zh_CN: 比如，在和某个建筑公司签订一份修建公路的合同时，政府该考虑尽可能少地花费公众的钱财。为此政府部门会利用竞价的手段来降低价格。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors will not bid that low.  Although not entitled to special consideration, they have the usual rights of citizens in a free society, including the right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even the lowest bid will be high enough for some contractor to make money.  So there is indeed a balance, of a kind.  But it is not a deliberate balancing of two interests each with claim to special consideration.  It is a balance between a public goal and market forces.  The government tries to obtain for the taxpaying motorists the best deal they can get in the context of a free society and a free market.
zh_CN: 实际当中，价格不可能为零，因为承包商不可能把价格降得这么低。虽说没有特殊声明，但是他们同样拥有着一个自由社会公民的权利，这其中就包括拒绝不划算的合同。所以，哪怕是最低的出价，也会让承包商有得赚。如此说来，这其中的确存在着平衡。但这不是两个利益集团出于各自获利的考虑而蓄意造成的平衡，公众目标和市场力量才是这种平衡的造就者。也就是说政府尝试为纳税人在自由社会和自由市场的环境中，争取到最好的交易。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of our money.  Freedom is more precious than money, so government's responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even greater than its responsibility to spend our money thus.  Governments must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's freedom.
zh_CN: 在以权购版的交易中，政府花费的是我们的自由，而非金钱。它比金钱更加珍贵，因此政府也有责任更加明智、更加谨慎地花费我们的自由。并且，永远也不能将出版商的利益和公众的自由等同视之。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Not &ldquo;balance&rdquo; but &ldquo;trade-off&rdquo;
zh_CN: 并非&ldquo;平衡&rdquo;，而是&ldquo;妥协&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea of balancing the readers' interests against the publishers' is the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two interests to be weighed: two interests <b>of the readers</b>.  Readers have an interest in their own freedom in using published works; depending on circumstances, they may also have an interest in encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.
zh_CN: 版权法的目的在于平衡读者与出版商之间的利益，这种说法是站不住脚的。但其中的确存在着需要权衡的两个利益：<b>读者的</b>两个利益。其一是读者使用出版物的自由程度；其二，根据情况，读者也会利用某些奖惩机制来鼓励创新和出版，从而获得更多的创新作品。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The word &ldquo;balance,&rdquo; in discussions of copyright, has come to stand as shorthand for the idea of &ldquo;striking a balance&rdquo; between the readers and the publishers.  Therefore, to use the word &ldquo;balance&rdquo; in regard to the readers' two interests would be confusing.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a> We need another term.
zh_CN: &ldquo;平衡&rdquo;一词在讨论版权时，代表了在读者与出版商间&ldquo;寻求平衡&rdquo;。因此，继续使用&ldquo;平衡&rdquo;来描述读者的两个利益难免会发生误会。<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>我们得换个词儿。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a &ldquo;trade-off.&rdquo; Therefore, rather than speaking of &ldquo;striking the right balance&rdquo; between parties, we should speak of &ldquo;finding the right trade-off between spending our freedom and keeping it.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 概括起来，当一个实体有着两个相互冲突的目标，并且不能同时完全实现它们，我们称这其中需要进行&ldquo;妥协&rdquo;。如此的话，我们最好说&ldquo;在是否消费我们自由的问题上，找个妥协的方案&rdquo;，而不是说在各方之间&ldquo;寻求一个平衡&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The second error: maximizing one output
zh_CN: 错误二：产出最大化

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of maximizing&mdash;not just increasing&mdash;the number of published works.  The erroneous concept of &ldquo;striking a balance&rdquo; elevated the publishers to parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the readers.
zh_CN: 第二个错误是对版权目的的曲解。版权常常被误以为是为了最大化出版作品的数量，而非仅仅是增加它们的数量。&ldquo;寻求平衡&rdquo;的观点错在把出版商的重要性提升到了与读者的重要性等同的地位。而这第二个错误，则将出版商凌驾于读者之上。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity in stock or the most expensive model.  Instead we conserve funds for other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality.  The principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of resources; we generally choose to keep some money for another use.
zh_CN: 当我们买东西的时候，我们绝不会把仓库里的商品尽数全包，更不会总买最贵最好的。相反，我们只会买我们需要的，然后留着点钱去买别的东西。我们不求最好，只求质量够硬。所谓的&ldquo;收益递减&rdquo;原则告诫我们，花掉所有的钱来买一样东西是不能充分利用资源的。我们总还会留着一些去买点别的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase.  The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication.  As we trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity.  Well before the increment becomes zero, we may well say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then settle on a bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of publication, but not to the utmost possible extent.
zh_CN: 和买东西类似，收益递减原则在版权问题上也同样适用。我们第一份花掉的自由，应该是让我们损失最少，而又最能鼓励更多出版的。随着我们继续花费公众的自由，我们会发现，每一次增加花费都会带来比上一次更大的损失，而收益却没上次多。当收益逐渐趋近与零，我们就会说，多出的那份花销不值得。于是我们确定了一份交易，它可以增加出版物的数量，但是又不会超出某个界限。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser, more advantageous bargains in advance&mdash;it dictates that the public must cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little more publication.
zh_CN: 产出最大化的这一说法否认了这些真知灼见，它指挥着大众为了多出一丝创新，而放弃几乎全部的使用出版物和作品的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The rhetoric of maximization
zh_CN: 最大化的论调

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong.  For instance, the publishers call people who copy &ldquo;pirates,&rdquo; a smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor with attacking a ship.  (This smear term was formerly used by authors to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.)  This rhetoric directly rejects the constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.
zh_CN: 实际当中，政客们的花言巧语广为流传，不断地支持着所谓产出最大化的目标，不计公众自由的花销。他们断定公开地复制这些作品是非法的，不公平的，是从根上大错特错的。比如，那些出版商把复制的行为称为&ldquo;剽窃&rdquo;，用这么一个贬义词把你和邻居们共享信息的行为等同于攻击商船。（剽窃这个贬义词曾经被创作者们用来形容出版商，他们利用合法途径出版未授权的作品版本。如今的出版商则是偷梁换柱，用这个词来诬蔑读者的复制行为。）这种修辞直接地否认了宪法关于版权的观点，却还装出一幅重申美国法律传统的模样。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The &ldquo;pirate&rdquo; rhetoric is typically accepted because it so pervades the media that few people realize how radical it is.  It is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never object to the publishers' demand that we surrender our freedom to do so.  In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of all&mdash;&ldquo;We want to copy&rdquo;&mdash;is disqualified in advance.
zh_CN: &ldquo;剽窃&rdquo;一词这里被广泛使用，它蒙蔽了媒体，使得很少人意识到它带来的根本性改变。这法子很有效，因为如果说复制本身就是本质上不合乎道义的，那么我们就永远也不能反对出版商的要求，哪怕我们会为此而放弃自由。换个说法，当公众需要证明为什么出版商不该获得更大的权利时，其中最重要的一个理由&mdash;&ldquo;我们就是想要去复制它&rdquo;&mdash;就已然被事先否定了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except using side issues.  Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom to distribute copies as a legitimate public value.
zh_CN: 这么一来，就遗留了一个重要问题，倘若要反对增强版权所有者的权利，就不得不引用一些次要论点。看看如今关于反对增强版权所有者权利的争论，几乎清一色地都在引用着那些无关痛痒的次要问题。没有哪个敢站出来把发行拷贝的自由当做是一个合法的公众价值观。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to argue that &ldquo;A certain practice is reducing our sales&mdash;or we think it might&mdash;so we presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount, and therefore it should be prohibited.&rdquo; We are led to the outrageous conclusion that the public good is measured by publishers' sales: What's good for General Media is good for the USA.
zh_CN: 于是现实当中，出版商就可以如此嚣张：&ldquo;一些行为致使我们的销量减少&mdash;或者说我们认为它们可能会导致销量减少&mdash;我们推测这会削减一定数量的创新产品&mdash;具体数量还不得而知。因此，这些行为必须被禁止。&rdquo;于是我们被蒙骗着得出了一个荒唐的怪论：公众利益是由出版商的销量来衡量的。只要是对General Media<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>有利的，就是对美利坚有益的。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The third error: maximizing publishers' power
zh_CN: 错误三：出版商权利最大化

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers&mdash;making copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying some other legal tool such as &ldquo;shrink wrap&rdquo; licenses to equivalent effect.  This goal, which entails the abolition of &ldquo;fair use&rdquo; and the &ldquo;right of first sale,&rdquo; is being pressed at every available level of government, from states of the US to international bodies.
zh_CN: 出版商宣扬的观点，是不计代价地使出版作品最大化。一旦这一观点被接受，他们紧接着会论证，要完成这一目标，需要将他们的权利最大化&mdash;让版权覆盖所有能想到的工作，或者利用法律工具，比如使用所谓的&ldquo;拆封许可&rdquo;<sup><a href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>，来达到相同的效果。这个所谓的目标，完全无视&ldquo;合理使用&rdquo;（Fair use）和&ldquo;权利穷竭原则&rdquo;（Right of first sale）<sup><a href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup>。并且渗透到每个政府部门，从美国各州，到全世界。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the creation of useful new works.  For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would have been illegal.
zh_CN: 出版商权力的最大化是荒谬的，因为严苛的版权规则反而会阻碍创新。莎士比亚也曾在他的作品中借用了别人在十几年前创作的戏剧中的桥段。设想如果遵照今天的版权法，莎翁的戏剧将会被视为非法。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to get it.  As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.
zh_CN: 退一步说，就算我们想要不计代价地获得最快的作品创作速度，那么最大化出版商的权利也不是通往此处的正确途径。作为一种提升出版速度的手段，它本身就是自相矛盾的。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The results of the three errors
zh_CN: 三个错误的后果

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader powers for longer periods of time.  The conceptual basis of copyright, as it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis for saying no.  Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask for.
zh_CN: 当前版权的立法趋势，是授予出版商尽量多的权利，和更久的版权有效期。版权的根本理念，从它诞生之日起，就被各种各样的错误曲解着。油嘴滑舌的立法者们打着&ldquo;版权为公众&rdquo;的幌子，实际上却对出版商有求必应。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. 483, a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years:
zh_CN: 举个例子吧，参议员Hatch提出了S. 483法案。该1995法案要求版权有效期延长二十年。对此该议员辩称：

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the interests of authors and the related question of whether the term of protection continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the creation of new works of authorship.
zh_CN: 我确信我们正在面临着两个问题：其一，当前的版权法是否足够保护作者的利益；其二，这种保护是否足以鼓励更多的创新。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This bill extended the copyright on already published works written since the 1920s.  This change was a giveaway to publishers with no possible benefit to the public, since there is no way to retroactively increase now the number of books published back then.  Yet it cost the public a freedom that is meaningful today&mdash;the freedom to redistribute books from that era.  Note the use of the propaganda term, &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection" >protect</a>,&rdquo; which embodies the second of the three errors.
zh_CN: 这一法案将会延长1920年以后发布的作品的版权有效期。对出版商来说这好像天上掉馅饼，而对公众来说，这有害无益。因为没有法子让时光倒流，增加那个年代之前的出版量，从而让公众获得更多自由使用的作品。不过无论如何，对于今天的人们来说，这法案却切实地消耗了公众的自由&mdash;无法自由地再版那个年代作品。请注意宣传词汇&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection" >保护</a>的使用，&rdquo;它包含了三个错误中的第二个。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written.  For works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the present 75 years.  Theoretically this would increase the incentive to write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra incentive should be required substantiate the claim with projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future.
zh_CN: 这一法案同时也延长了即将出版作品的版权有效期。对于即将出版的作品，版权有效期由原来的75年延长到了95年。理论上讲，这也许确实能够激励更多的创新，但是任何声称需要这些额外鼓励的出版商，最好都拿出一个像样的2075年的预计资产负债表来说话。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers' arguments: a law extending copyright was enacted in 1998.  It was officially called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of its sponsors who died earlier that year.  We usually call it the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to prevent the copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring.  Bono's widow, who served the rest of his term, made this statement:
zh_CN: 到头来，议会也没有对出版商的提议有什么问题：一个延长版权有效期的法律条文在1998年生效了。这就是&ldquo;松尼-波诺版权期延长法案&rdquo;（Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act）。此法案以其中一位支持者命名，这位松尼先生在法案生效前去世了。我们其实常常把它叫做&ldquo;米老鼠版权法案&rdquo;，因为我们都认为，真正推动这项法案，是为了让米老鼠这一角色的版权继续生效。波诺的遗孀继续了他的工作，并表示：

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
zh_CN: 实际上，松尼希望版权可以永久持有。但是有人告诉我，这么做是违背宪法的。我诚挚地邀请各位能够与我并肩，为全方位地加强版权法而努力。各位也许还知道杰克.华伦蒂（Jack Valenti）也提交了类似的议案。他表示，版权的期限应该延续到世界末日（forever less one day）。也许委员会应该在下届国会考虑看看那份提案<sup><a href="#TransNote4">4</a></sup>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law on the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the Constitution's goal of promoting progress.  The court responded by abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the Constitution requires only lip service.
zh_CN: 虽然版权期延长法案对宪法当中推进社会发展的目的毫无益处，最高法院最终还是同意了这个颠覆了整个法律系统的提议。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just to be nice.  Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.
zh_CN: 在1997年通过的另一项法案，使得复制任何出版物到达一定数量后，便被视为重刑罪。哪怕你仅仅为了表示友好而把它们送给你的朋友。在这之前，这种赠送行为在美国并非被视为犯罪。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was designed to bring back what was then called &ldquo;copy protection&rdquo;&mdash;now known as <a href="/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html">DRM</a> (Digital Restrictions Management)&mdash;which users already detested, by making it a crime to defeat the restrictions, or even publish information about how to defeat them.  This law ought to be called the &ldquo;Domination by Media Corporations Act&rdquo; because it effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright law.  It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use of a work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the work contains some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce them.
zh_CN: 另一项更糟糕的法律就是千禧数字版权法案（Digital Millennium Copyright Act，DMCA）。该法案再次提出当时称为&ldquo;反拷贝&rdquo;机制&mdash;现在叫做<a href="/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html">DRM</a>（Digital Restrictions Management，数字限制管理）&mdash;一直以来计算机用户都对这种机制深恶痛绝。因为这一法案将任何破解反拷贝机制的行为变为非法，哪怕仅仅是发布破解方法。这法案我看最好叫做&ldquo;千家传媒合谋法案&rdquo;（Domination by Media Corporations Act），因为它根本就是让出版商有权制定适合自己的版权法。该法案声称，出版商有权对其作品的使用做出任何限制。这些限制，可以借助该法案赋予的特权，利用加密或许可证管理器等方式来强制执行。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a recent treaty to increase copyright powers.  The treaty was promulgated by the World <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">Intellectual Property</a> Organization, an organization dominated by copyright- and patent-holding interests, with the aid of pressure from the Clinton administration; since the treaty only increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in any country is doubtful.  In any case, the bill went far beyond what the treaty required.
zh_CN: 有人曾辩解道，这个法案是实现了最近出台的一项关于加强版权的条约。该条约由世界<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">知识产权</a>组织颁布。而该组织则被一群版权和专利持有者掌控着，并由克林顿政府支持，只会为了他们的利益说话。这项条约只是加强版权持有人的权力，而至于它是否会为公众利益服务就另当别论了。不管怎样，这项法案也大大超出了条约所要求的范围。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered fair use. How did the publishers respond? Former representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of American Publishers, said that the publishers &ldquo;could not live with what [the libraries were] asking for.&rdquo; Since the libraries were asking only to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the publishers had survived until the present day.
zh_CN: 图书馆是反对这项法案的中坚力量，因为在图书馆中的复制行为应属合理使用范畴，而这种行为也可能会根据此法案而被禁止。出版商对此又作何反应呢？Pat Schroeder，以前是出版商的代表，现为美国出版商协会（Association of American Publishers, AAP）的院外活动集团成员。他表示，出版商&ldquo;倘若按照[图书馆的]要求做就根本不能活&ldquo;。可是图书馆所要求的和几十年前没什么两样，它不过是在维持现状。说来就奇怪了，出版商又是靠什么来存活至今的呢？

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed this bill, showed how far the US Constitution's view of copyright has been disregarded.  He said that new powers, backed by criminal penalties, were needed urgently because the &ldquo;movie industry is worried,&rdquo; as well as the &ldquo;music industry&rdquo; and other &ldquo;industries.&rdquo; I asked him, &ldquo;But is this in the public interest?&rdquo; His response was telling: &ldquo;Why are you talking about the public interest? These creative people don't have to give up their rights for the public interest!&rdquo; The &ldquo;industry&rdquo; has been identified with the &ldquo;creative people&rdquo; it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement, and the Constitution has been turned upside down.
zh_CN: 国会议员巴尼-福兰克（Barney Frank）在一次会议上和我还有其它几个反对该项法案的人碰面，他向我们展示了美国宪法中关于版权的观点是怎样被忽视的。他说，由于&ldquo;电影业&rdquo;，&ldquo;唱片业&rdquo;和其它&ldquo;产业&rdquo;都&ldquo;对现状表示担忧&rdquo;，急需通过加大处罚力度来扩大权利。我于是问道：&ldquo;但是这有没有考虑到公众的利益呢？&rdquo;他接着换用出版商的口气答道：&ldquo;这年头你还考虑公众利益？这些创新型人才可不会为了什么公众利益而放弃自己的权利！&rdquo;这些五花八门的&ldquo;产业&rdquo;雇佣着大量所谓&ldquo;创新型人才&rdquo;，并以此为幌子，将版权作为自己理应获得的特权。宪法由此被彻底颠覆。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The DMCA was enacted in 1998.  As enacted, it says that fair use remains nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or hardware that you could practice it with.  Effectively, fair use is prohibited.
zh_CN: 千禧数字版权法案在1998年生效。生效之日起，法案规定合理使用依然在名义上是合法的，但是允许出版商以某种形式禁止用户使用软件或硬件。事实的结果是，合理使用由此被禁止了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information about how to read them.  In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of Princeton University was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a scientific paper stating what he had learned about a proposed encryption system for restricting access to recorded music.
zh_CN: 基于这项法案，电影业可以监视那些用来播放DVD光盘的自由软件，甚至有权监视DVD数据是如何被读取的。在2001年四月，普林斯顿大学（Princeton University）的爱德华-费尔顿教授（Professor Edward Felten)仅仅由于发表了一篇科研论文，便被美国唱片工业协会（Recording Industry Association of America，RIAA）一纸诉状告上法庭。因为该论文涉及了最新的密码学研究成果，而他所研究的加密体系正是用来加密音乐唱片的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers' traditional freedoms&mdash;for instance, the freedom to lend a book to your friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a library, to buy it without giving your name to a corporate data bank, even the freedom to read it twice.  Encrypted e-books generally restrict all these activities&mdash;you can read them only with special secret software designed to restrict you.
zh_CN: 我们还可以发现，与传统纸制书相比，电子书剥夺了读者大量的自由&mdash;比如，自由地把书借给朋友，卖到二手书店，或是自由地从图书馆借阅，不署名地购买，甚至是自由地读上第二遍。加密的电子书基本上都会对上述行为进行限制&mdash;想读这些电子书？你得用个专用的软件，任凭它对你做出任何限制，你却对此无能为力，因为这些软件的内部运行细节是保秘的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I hope you will reject them too.  If an e-book doesn't give you the same freedoms as a traditional paper book, don't accept it!
zh_CN: 我可不会买这些加了密，还处处受限的电子书。我希望你也能够主动抵制它们。要是哪个电子书不能像传统书那样，让读者获得应有的自由，那就别搭理它！

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted e-books risks prosecution.  A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference, because he had written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful to do so.  Now Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the European Union recently adopted one.
zh_CN: 任何个人，倘若独立发布可以阅读那些受限电子书的软件，都有被起诉的风险。一个名叫Dmitry Sklyarov的俄罗斯程序员在2001年来美国参加一个会议的时候被逮捕。因为他在俄罗斯写了一个类似的软件，而这种软件在当地是合法的。不过现在俄罗斯正在筹备制定类似的法律来禁止此类软件，欧盟在最近已经采用了类似的法律。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive for other reasons, such as that computer display screens are not easy surfaces to read from.  We can't rely on this happy accident to protect us in the long term; the next attempt to promote e-books will use &ldquo;electronic paper&rdquo;&mdash;book-like objects into which an encrypted, restricted e-book can be downloaded.  If this paper-like surface proves more appealing than today's display screens, we will have to defend our freedom in order to keep it.  Meanwhile, e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools require students to buy their textbooks in the form of restricted e-books.
zh_CN: 大众市场上，电子书已经是一个失败的商业尝试。但这并非是由于读者为了维护自己的自由而使其失败的。电子书本来就不太讨人喜欢。比如说，盯着电脑屏幕读书会让人很不舒服。但是我们可不能指望这么一个幸运的缺陷能够保护我们多久。下一步改进电子书的方案将是采用&ldquo;电子纸张&rdquo;&mdash;一个长得像书的玩意，可以在里面放上受限的加密电子书。假如这种类似纸张的显示效果收到欢迎，我们则更需要维护我们的自由。与此同时，电子书也正在步步侵蚀着我们的生活：纽约大学（New York University，NYU）和其它一些牙科学校要求它们的学生购买的教材，全是受限的电子书。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The media companies are not satisfied yet.  In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the &ldquo;Security Systems Standards and Certification Act&rdquo; (SSSCA)<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a>, which would require all computers (and other digital recording and playback devices) to have government-mandated copy-restriction systems.  That is their ultimate goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for the public to &ldquo;tamper with&rdquo; (i.e., modify for their own purposes).  Since free software is software that users can modify, we face here for the first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits free software for a certain job.  Prohibition of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free software such as GNU Radio would be censored.
zh_CN: 那些传媒公司可还没满足。在2001年，在迪斯尼的资助下，参议员霍灵思（Senator Hollings）提交了“安全系统标准与认证法案”（Security Systems Standards and Certification Act，SSSCA）<a href="#footnote2">[2]</a>。该法案规定，所有计算机设备（以及全部数字录制和/或播放设备）必须装有政府授权的拷贝限制系统。这是他们的最终目标，在提案中的第一项，就是禁止一切可以播放HDTV的数字设备，除非它们可以让用户无法&rdquo;篡改&ldquo;作品（也就是说，用户无法按照自己的意愿做任何修改）。由于自由软件本身就允许用户对软件进行修改，我们在这里第一次遇到了一个法案，明显地阻止了自由软件做某些工作。这么看来，禁止其他操作也就不远了。假如联邦通信委员会（Federal Communications Commission，FCC）采纳了该法案，那么现有的自由软件，比如GNU Radio，将会被审查。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: To block these bills and rules requires political action.<a href="#footnote3">[3]</a>
zh_CN: 阻止这些法案和规章需要政治上的行动。<a href="#footnote3">[3]</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Finding the right bargain
zh_CN: 找个划算的交易

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public interest above all.  The government's duty when selling the public's freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible.  At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.
zh_CN: 如何合理地制定版权政策呢？假如把版权视为公众购买的商品，那么它必须服务于公众的利益。政府在出售公众自由的时候，必须把它用在刀刃上，不到万不得已不能出手，而且要小心谨慎。至少，我们必须把版权涉及的领域约束在一定范围内，只要能够保证一定数量的出版物和创新作品。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?
zh_CN: 但我们无法用竞价的方式来找出一个最低的价格消费我们的自由，这可不是什么城建工程。那我们该如何找到这最合理的&ldquo;价位&rdquo;呢？

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and observe the results.  By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really necessary to achieve the public's purposes.  We must judge this by actual observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers are reduced in any way.
zh_CN: 一个方案就是将版权的权利逐渐削减，然后随时观察结果如何。通过观察到的结果，计算何时出版物和创新作品的数量出现多大程度的减少，继而我们就可以知道赋予版权所有者多大的权利是足够满足公众需求的。我们必须通过精确的测量观察来进行判断，而不能听信出版商的结论。因为出版商的权利受到哪怕一丁点的损害，他们都会夸大其词，叫嚷着世界末日即将到来。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be adjusted separately.  After we find the necessary minimum for one policy dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of copyright while maintaining the desired publication level.
zh_CN: 版权政策包含着几个相互独立的方面，它们可以分开来调整。当我们找到了一个方面的最小开销，我们依然可以减小其它方面的权利而将出版发行量维持在一定水平。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now typically on the order of a century.  Reducing the monopoly on copying to ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be a good first step.  Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of derivative works, could continue for a longer period.
zh_CN: 版权的其中一个方面就是它的有效期。现在的有效期通常是一个世纪上下。把有效期减少至十年，从作品发布之日起开始计时，这不妨是一个好的开始。版权的另一个方面，涉及到创作后续作品，可以暂时不做修改。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on unpublished works does not directly limit readers' freedom; whether we are free to copy a work is moot when we do not have copies.  So giving authors a longer time to get a work published does no harm.  Authors (who generally do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely choose to delay publication just to push back the end of the copyright term.
zh_CN: 为什么要从作品发布之日起开始计时呢？因为那些尚未发布的版权作品并不会直接限制读者的自由。我们在还没有获得这些作品之前，我们是否有拷贝它的自由还不确定。所以，给作者久一些的时间来酝酿发布作品是没什么坏处的。作者（他们通常在发布之前拥有对其作品的版权）很少选择为了延长版权持有期，而延期发布作品。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the overall viability of publishing today.  In most media and genres, successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even successful works are usually out of print well before ten.  Even for reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a ten-year-old public domain version.
zh_CN: 为什么是十年？因为这个提议可以让人放心。我们可以非常自信地说，这一削减方案不会对现有出版业产生多大影响。在大多数传媒和艺术作品上，成功的作品往往只能在头几年带来效益。而且，哪怕是那些成功的作品，在十年内也就停止出版了。甚至是一些参考性的作品，通常的也就在十几年内有用。十年的版权有效期足够了：更新的版本会定期发布，大多数读者都会购买在版权保护期内的新版作品，而不会去复制一个十年前发布的无版权版本。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, we could try a further reduction to tune the system.  At a panel on copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying that anything beyond five years was intolerable.
zh_CN: 十年的时间也许还能有富裕。当运转得比较稳定的时候，我们可以试着再减少些时间。在一次关于文学作品版权的大会上，我提交了关于十年版权有效期的建议。一位坐在我身边的著名科幻小说作者对此表示了强烈的反对。他说，有效期超过五年就已经让人无法忍受了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works.  Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for specific uses and media.  It would be foolish to pay for every highway project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects in the most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to &ldquo;pay&rdquo; for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find necessary for any one kind.
zh_CN: 不过我们不能把这个有效期适用在任何形式的作品上。创作一个高度一致的版权政策，对于公众利益来说没太大好处。而且现有的版权法中已经有很多针对特定用途或媒介的条款。要是我们在雇人修建公路的时候，总是假设工人们要跨越千山万水，排除万难，那么我们可就总得花大价钱。这可不是个聪明的法子。同样，假设所有的创作都是万古常青，永世不朽的，那我们就要付出高额的代价，牺牲很大的自由。这显然也是愚蠢的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works to be published.  Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them.  In my own field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because product cycles are even shorter than that.
zh_CN: 因此，也许小说，字典，计算机程序，歌曲，交响乐还有电影需要区分对待，赋予它们不同的版权有效期。然后，我们可以分别减少每种作品的有效期，直到达到一个合适的程度。比如，也许一个长度超过一小时的电影可以获得二十年的有效期，因为创作它们可能有更多的开销。在我所从事的计算机程序设计领域，三年也就足够了。因为产品的周期要远远小于此。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally permitted even though it is copyrighted.  The natural first step in reducing this dimension of copyright power is to permit occasional private small-quantity noncommercial copying and distribution among individuals.  This would eliminate the intrusion of the copyright police into people's private lives, but would probably have little effect on the sales of published works.  (It may be necessary to take other legal steps to ensure that shrink-wrap licenses cannot be used to substitute for copyright in restricting such copying.)  The experience of Napster shows that we should also permit noncommercial verbatim redistribution to the general public&mdash;when so many of the public want to copy and share, and find it so useful, only draconian measures will stop them, and the public deserves to get what it wants.
zh_CN: 版权政策中，还有一个方面，那就是关于合理使用的范围：对于版权作品，一些部分或全部的复制行为是合法的。要削减版权权利，在这个方面最自然的一步就是允许个人非商业的，在人与人之间小范围内拷贝和/或传播。这一改变将会削弱版权对私人生活的入侵。而不会对出版物的销量产生太大影响。（也许还有必要在法律上阻止类似拆封许可合同的条文来替代版权法的限制。）通过Napster的经验来看<sup><a href="#TransNote5">5</a></sup>，我们也应该允许人们在未对作品进行任何修改的前提下，在公共场合出于非商业目的的传播&mdash;当很大一部分公众发现作品非常有用，要求拷贝和共享，并且只能通过严酷的法律对这部分公众的行为进行阻止的时候，那么公众就有权得到他们想要的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the readers.  Computer programs, being used for functional purposes (to get jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that, including the freedom to publish an improved version.  See &ldquo;Free Software Definition,&rdquo; in this book, for an explanation of the freedoms that software users should have.  But it may be an acceptable compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a delay of two or three years from the program's publication.
zh_CN: 对于小说，或者更普遍地说，对于那些用于娱乐的作品，在不修改的前提下进行非商业目的的拷贝对于读者来说已经说足够自由了。但是对于计算机程序，使用它是出于功能性的目的（为了完成某项工作），那么需要更多的自由。包括发布修改后版本的自由。关于软件用户应有的自由，可以参见拙作《自由软件定义》一文。不过有一个可以接受的妥协方案，那就是在程序在发布两三年后，再赋予用户这些自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public's wish to use digital technology to copy.  Publishers will no doubt find these proposals &ldquo;unbalanced&rdquo;; they may threaten to take their marbles and go home, but they won't really do it, because the game will remain profitable and it will be the only game in town.
zh_CN: 这些改变符合公众对于使用数字技术的需求。显然，出版商会反对这些建议，认为它们是&ldquo;片面的&rdquo;。他们也许会威胁说，这么下去就带着他们的不朽作品回家。但他们最多也就是动动口舌，不会真的放弃发布作品。因为即便这么做，出版商依然有利可图；他们也别想玩出花样。<sup><a href="#TransNote6">6</a></sup>

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements.  It would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright.  Such limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require are a standard part of the US legal system.
zh_CN: 当我们讨论削减版权权力的时候，我们必须考虑到那些大公司会在和用户达成的最终许可协议中修改它。必须有种措施，能够阻止利用协议来增加版权法中没有涉及的限制。美国的法律体系规定，可以对这些格式条款（即，经营者为了重复使用而预先拟定，并在订立合同时未与消费者协商的条款）做出何种程度的限制。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: A personal note
zh_CN: 后记

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I am a software designer, not a legal scholar.  I've become concerned with copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of computer networks, such as the Internet.  As a user of computers and networks for 30 years, I value the freedoms that we have lost, and the ones we may lose next.  As an author, I can reject the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creator">creator</a>, often cited by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors&mdash;powers which these authors will then sign away to publishers.
zh_CN: 我是一个软件设计师，并非法律专业的学者。我之所以关注版权，是因为在计算机网络领域中，尤其是因特网上，版权问题是不可避免的。伴随着计算机和网络，我已走过了三十余个寒暑。作为一个普通用户，我珍视我们失去的每一份自由，也关注那些即将被剥夺的自由。而作为一个作者，我更有资格反对任何对<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creator">创造者</a>的粉饰神化。出版商对作者的鼓吹夸大，不过是为了能够扩张自己的权力。目的达成，兔死狗烹，作者将不得不把作品版权转让给出版商。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check, and proposals on which you can form your own opinions.  But I ask you to accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don't deserve special power over you.  If you wish to reward me further for the software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a check&mdash;but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.
zh_CN: 文中所涉及的事实，你都可以去查证；其中的推理论证，也可仔细推敲。你更可以提出自己的观点意见。但请你至少听进我这句话：我，作为一个作者，没有任何资格可以凌驾于你们之上。倘若你愿为我的付出奖赏我些什么，我会诚挚感谢并欣然接受&mdash;然而，请时刻牢记，切勿因为作者的这些付出，而轻易将你们自己的自由拱手相让。

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

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: See Julian Sanchez’s article <a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-metaphors/">&ldquo;The Trouble with &lsquo;Balance&rsquo; Metaphors&rdquo;</a> for an examination of &ldquo;how the analogy between sound judgment and balancing weights may constrain our thinking in unhealthy ways.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 参看Julian Sanchez的文章<a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-metaphors/">&ldquo;&lsquo;平衡&rsquo; 隐喻&rdquo;带来的麻烦</a>，来思考&ldquo;明确判断和寻求平衡的类比会如何限制我们正常的思考方式。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a good mnemonic is &ldquo;Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything,&rdquo; but it really stands for the &ldquo;Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 该法案后来重命名为CBDTPA。这最好解释为&ldquo;买吧，不过别想修改什么&rdquo;（&ldquo;Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything&rdquo;）。当然，官方的称呼是&ldquo;消费者宽带及数字电视促进法。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: If you would like to help, I recommend the Web sites <a href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>, <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/">publicknowledge.org</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/">www.eff.org</a>.
zh_CN: 如果需要帮助，可以访问： <a href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign</a>，<a href="http://publicknowledge.org">publicknowledge.org</a> 和 <a href="http://www.eff.org">www.eff.org</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: This essay is published in <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>.
zh_CN: 本文发表于<a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>自由软件，自由社会：Richard Stallman选集</cite></a>。

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">General Media，一间出版社，此处用来代指整个出版商。</li>
    <li id="TransNote2">拆封许可合同，即Shrink Wrap License。多见于软件领域，一旦用户拆开软件最外层包装的热塑封包（Shrink Wrap），就表示用户接受了软件的许可证。引申为某种合同，协议或其它条文，只有在用户拆开产品包装后才能看到，并且一旦拆开包装，就意味着接受其中的条款。</li>
    <li id="TransNote3">合理使用，是指在某些情况下，法律允许自由使用版权作品而不必征得版权所有人的同意，也不必向版权所有者支付报酬的情形。权利穷竭原则，是指版权所有人或其授权人创造或制造的作品，在第一次投放市场后，权利人即丧失了对它的控制权。也就是说权利穷竭了。比如，用户购买了某品牌的手机，当用户将该手机再次出售给他人的时候，则不必向版权所有者交纳费用。</li>
    <li id="TransNote4">杰克.华伦蒂，前美国电影协会（MPAA）主席。他曾说过，倘若要给版权加个期限，那么就该是forever less one day。这句话源自一个英语的俗语：forever and a day。直译为“比永远多一天”。由于美国宪法要求版权应该有期限，因此杰克在这里将原句改为“比永远少一天”。</li>
    <li id="TransNote5">Naspter，早期的P2P音乐共享程序。使得用户可以免费地与网络上其他人共享音乐文件。因触犯了唱片公司的利益，而被告上法庭，并被迫做出调整。</li>
    <li id="TransNote6">原句为“it will be the only game in town”。直译为“这也将是全城唯一的游戏”。表示出版商没有别的选择。“The only game in town”是一本畅销的儿童小说，在美国出版于1988年。</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</b>：Deng, Nan，2010。
    <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2017，2018，2020, 2021。

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