diff options
author | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-09-21 23:57:23 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-09-21 23:57:23 +0800 |
commit | 335fa513a87ea2f3a72ca50f3bd1ee34d451be14 (patch) | |
tree | ca522eec4a57b93adaec74f22635a8fc85895843 | |
parent | 0ab63b6a278fc28884127992cbf473518fd57124 (diff) | |
download | fsfs-zh-335fa513a87ea2f3a72ca50f3bd1ee34d451be14.tar.xz |
continue proofreaded
-rw-r--r-- | docs/copyright-vs-community.md | 592 |
1 files changed, 35 insertions, 557 deletions
diff --git a/docs/copyright-vs-community.md b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md index 016a2db..833d1a3 100644 --- a/docs/copyright-vs-community.md +++ b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md @@ -1,699 +1,177 @@ ---- -Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' -description: Untitled Document -distribution: global -keywords: Untitled Document -resource-type: document -title: Untitled Document -... - -1. Copyright vs. Community @entrybreak{}in the Age of Computer Networks {#copyright-vs.-community-entrybreakin-the-age-of-computer-networks .chapter} -============================================ - -计算机网络时代的版权与社区之争 -============================== - -> This is a transcript of the keynote speech presented by Richard -> Stallman, on 12 October 2009, at the LIANZA conference, at the -> Christchurch Convention Centre, in Christchurch, New Zealand. +# 计算机网络时代的版权与社区之争 > 本文是 Richard Stallman 所做主题演讲之抄本,该主题演讲于 2009 年十月在新西兰基督城(克赖斯特彻奇)会展中心所举行的新西兰奥特亚罗瓦图书馆与信息协会(LIANZA)会议上进行。 -@firstcopyingnotice{{著作权所有 (C) 2009 自由软件基金会,感谢 Bookman 为此原始抄本所做的贡献。此版本是 @fsfsthreecite 的一部分。} +> Copyright (C) 2009 自由软件基金会,感谢 Bookman 为此原始抄本所做的贡献。 -> **Brenda Chawner:** 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. -> > **Brenda Chawner:** 今天,本人荣幸介绍 Richard Stallman,他的主题演讲由惠灵顿维多利亚大学信息管理学院所赞助。 > -> 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. -> -> Richard 致力于推进软件自由已有 25 年以上。他曾于 1983 年创始 GNU 计划以开发一种自由的操作系统(GNU 操作系统),并且于 1985 年创立自由软件基金会(FSF)。每当您读取或发送一条 nz-libs 信息时,您就在使用 Mailman 软件,它是 GNU 计划的一部分。因此无论您是否意识到这一点,Richard 的创作已经深入我们每个人的生活。 -> -> 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. +> Richard 致力于推进软件自由已逾 25 年。他曾于 1983 年创始 GNU 计划以开发一种自由的操作系统(GNU 操作系统),并且于 1985 年创立自由软件基金会(FSF)。每当您读取或发送一条 nz-libs 信息时,您就在使用 Mailman 软件,它是 GNU 计划的一部分。因此无论您是否意识到这一点,Richard 的创作已经深入我们每个人的生活。 > > 我想将他描述为最有影响力却不为大多数人所熟知的人物,尽管他曾对我说,这不可能是真的,由于它们的正确性不可能被证实。 > -> **RMS:** We can’t tell. -> > **RMS:** 不能这样说。 > -> **BC:** I said that—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. -> > **BC:** 我是想说——我仍然喜欢这样说。他关于软件自由以及信息应当可自由获取的理念被 Tim Berners-Lee 用于创建世界上第一台网络服务器,并且他在 1999 年对于一部自由的在线百科全书的深入思考启发了 Jimmy Wales,后者创立了现在的 Wikipedia。 > -> Today Richard will be talking to us about copyright vs. community in -> the age of computer networks, and their implications for libraries. -> Richard. -> > 今天,Richard 将为我们带来关于计算机网络时代的版权与社区之争,以及它们对于图书馆的启示的演讲。有请 Richard。 > -> **RMS:** 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 “Wellingtons.” 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. -> > **RMS:** 我来到新西兰已有两周时间,在北岛的大部分时间都在下雨。现在我可以理解为何他们将长筒橡胶靴子称为“惠灵顿靴”。而后我看到了一位使用银叶蕨的木材制造桌椅的工匠,他将其称为蕨类家具(fern-iture)。然后我们乘坐渡船来到此地,当我们下船时,人们立即开始嘲笑我们;但他们没有任何恶意,只是想让我们感受皮克顿当地的风情。 -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. - 人们邀请我演讲的原因通常是基于我为自由软件所做的工作。而今天这场演讲并非关于自由软件;而是要回答这样一个问题,即自由软件的理念是否可以延伸至其他类型的作品。但为了使这个问题有意义,我最好还是简要介绍一下自由软件意味着什么。 -Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free -speech,” not “free beer.” Free software is software that respects the -user’s freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user -deserves always to have: - 自由软件关乎的是自由而非价格,因此请思考“自由言论”而非“免费啤酒”。自由软件是尊重用户自由的软件,而这里有四项特定的自由是用户总是应当拥有的: -- Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. - - 自由之零:以您所希望的任何方式运行该程序的自由; -- Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and - change it to make the program do what you wish. - - 自由之一:研究程序的源代码并对其进行修改使程序能够满足您的需求的自由; -- Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbor—that is, the freedom - to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish. - -- 自由之二:帮助您的邻居——即再分发该程序的原始副本的自由; - -- And freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That’s - the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish. +- 自由之二:帮助您的邻居——即再分发该程序原始副本的自由; - 自由之三:贡献您的社区——即再分发您对该程序的改进版本的自由。 -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. - -如果程序赋予您这四项基本自由,那么它就是自由软件,也就是意味着它的发布和使用所构成的社会体系属于一种尊重用户自由以及用户社区的社会协作的伦理体系。但如果以上自由中的任意一条缺失或是不充分,它称为私有软件、非自由软件或者迫使用户屈从的软件。这是不符合伦理的,也不能称其为对社会的贡献,而是一种权力的攫取。这种不符合伦理的实践不应当存在;自由软件运动的最终目标是终结这种行径。所有软件应当是自由的,于是所有用户也就因此获得自由。 - -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. +如果程序赋予您这四项基本自由,那么它就是自由软件,也就是意味着它的发布和使用所构成的社会体系属于一种尊重用户自由以及用户社区的社会协作伦理体系。但如果以上自由中的任意一条缺失或是不充分,则它称为私有软件、非自由软件或者迫使用户屈从的软件。这是不符合伦理的,也不能称其为对社会的贡献,而是一种权力的攫取。这种不符合伦理的实践不应当存在;自由软件运动的最终目标是终结这种行径。所有软件应当是自由的,于是所有用户也就因此获得自由。 私有软件使得用户陷入孤立无援的困境:所谓孤立,是由于用户被禁止分享;所谓无援,是由于用户不能拥有源代码,因此不能对其进行修改,他们甚至不能研究它以便确定它真正是在对他们做什么,而且众多私有软件拥有恶意功能用于窥探用户、限制用户、甚至为对用户的攻击提供后门。 -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. - -例如,微软 Windows 操作系统拥有后门使得微软可以强制安装软件更改而无需得到理应作为计算机拥有者的用户的许可。您可能认为它仍是属于您的计算机,但如果您犯了用它运行 Windows 的错误,实际上是微软拥有了您的计算机。这样计算机应当被扔出窗外,意即要么将 Windows 从计算机中扔出去,要么将这台计算机从房间的窗户中扔出去。 - -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. - -但是,任何私有软件都赋予了其开发者凌驾于用户之上的不公权力。开发者们或多或少地滥用这种权力,但他们都不应该拥有这种权力。您理应拥有对您所进行的计算的控制权,并且不必屈从于任何一家特定的公司。因此,您应当使用自由软件。 +例如,微软 Windows 操作系统拥有后门使得微软可以强制安装软件更改而无需得到理应作为计算机拥有者——用户的许可。您可能认为它仍是属于您的计算机,但如果您犯了用它运行 Windows 的错误,实际上是微软拥有了您的计算机。这样计算机应当被扔出窗外,意即要么将 Windows 从计算机中扔出去,要么将这台计算机从房间的窗户中扔出去(either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window)。 -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—whether it’s ethically essential that -you have them or not. And that’s the question that I’m going to address -today. +但是,任何私有软件都赋予了其开发者凌驾于用户之上的不公权力。开发者们或多或少地滥用这种权力,但他们都不应该拥有这种权力。您理应拥有对您进行的计算的控制权,并且不必屈从于任何一家特定的公司。因此,您应当使用自由软件。 在关于自由软件的演说结束时,人们有时会问,这些相同的自由和理念是否也适用于其他事物。如果您在自己的计算机上拥有一份已发表作品的副本,提问您是否应当拥有同样的四项基本自由是有意义的——即您是否拥有这些自由在伦理上是否重要。这就是我今天将要着重论述的问题。 -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. - 如果您拥有一份除了软件以外的某种东西的副本,对于大多数情况,唯一可能拒绝您的任何一种自由的东西就是版权法。而对于软件则不是这样。使软件成为私有的主要途径是利用合同以及拒绝对用户公开源代码,而版权只是某种次要的备选方案。而对于其他东西,并没有源代码和可执行代码这样的区分。 -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. - -例如,我们谈论一篇文本,如果您能够看到该文本以便阅读它,那么该文本就没有您所不能看到的东西。因此这并不是存在于软件中的同类问题。大多数情况下,只有版权可能拒绝您的这些自由。 - -So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law allow you to -do with published works? What should copyright law say?” +例如,我们谈论一篇文本,如果您能够看到该文本以便阅读它,那么该文本就没有您不能看到的东西。因此这并不是存在于软件中的同类问题。大多数情况下,只有版权可以拒绝您的这些自由。 于是这个问题可以被转述为:“版权法应当允许您对已发布的作品做什么?版权法应当说些什么?” -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. - 版权随着复制技术一起发展,因此有必要回顾一下复制技术的发展史。在古代世界,只要您能在书写表面上使用书写工具,那里就有复制技术的发展。您可以阅读一份副本并且抄写另一份。 -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. - -这种复制技术的效率相当低下,但它的一个特性就是它没有经济规模效应。为了抄写 10 份副本,您需要花费相当于抄写一份副本的 10 倍的时间,它除了书写工具以外并不需要其他特殊设备,同时除了识字以外您也不需要其他的特殊技能。其结果是任何一本书的副本都是以一种去中心化的方式创作的。只要有一份副本,只要某人想要复制它,他就可以这样去做。 - -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—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. - -古代世界没有像版权这样的东西的存在。如果您有一份副本并且想要复制它,无人会告知您您不被允许如此做——除非当地的首领不喜欢书中的内容,此时他可能会因为您复制了这本书而对您进行处罚。但这不是版权,而是与之紧密相关的其他东西,称为审查。而如今版权通常被用于对人们进行审查的企图。 - -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. +这种复制技术的效率相当低下,但它的一个特性就是它没有经济规模效应。为了抄写 10 份副本,您需要花费相当于 10 倍于抄写一份副本的时间,它除了书写工具以外并不需要其他特殊设备,同时除了识字以外您也不需要其他的特殊技能。其结果是任何一本书的副本都是以一种去中心化的方式创作的。只要有一份副本,只要某人想要复制它,他就可以这样去做。 -这种情况持续了数千年,然而,此后复制技术发生了巨大进步,这称为印刷机。印刷机使得复制过程更有效率,但这并不具有一致性。由于批量复制的效率得到巨大提升,但每次仅仅印制一份副本并不会由于印刷机的存在而变得高效。事实上,您最好还是自己进行手抄,这将会比用印刷机印制一份副本更快。 +古代世界没有像版权这样的东西的存在。如果您有一份副本并且想要复制它,无人会告知您您不被允许如此做——除非当地的首领不喜欢书中的内容,此时他可能会因为您复制了这本书而对您进行处罚。但这不是版权,而是与之紧密相关的其他东西,称为审查。而如今版权通常是对人们审查的一种企图。 -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. +这种情况持续了数千年,然而,此后复制技术发生了巨大进步,这称为印刷机。印刷机使得复制过程更有效率,但这并不具有一致性。由于批量复制的效率得到巨大提升,但每次仅仅印制一份副本并不会由于印刷机的存在而变得高效。事实上,您最好还是自己进行手抄,这将会比用印刷机印制一份副本更快。 印刷机具有经济规模效应:需要花费大量工作来进行排版,但您随后就可以快速复制很多份副本。同时,印刷机和字模都属于相对昂贵的设备,大多数人并不拥有它们;而且大部分识字的人们也不知道如何使用它们。使用印刷机是一种不同于书写的技术。其结果是一种中心化的复制方式:任何给定的书本的副本只能在少数地方被印制,它们随后可以被运输到有人想要购买副本的任何地方。 -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. - -版权始于印刷机的时代。从 16 世纪开始,英格兰的版权制度开始成为一种审查体系。我相信其最初的本意只是审查新教徒,但其随后改为审查天主教徒,并且很可能也被用于审查许多其他人。根据这一法律,为了发行一本书,您必须得到皇家许可,而这种许可是以永久垄断权的形式被授予的。这种制度一直被允许存在直到 17 世纪 80 年代,我相信。(根据 Wikipedia 相关词条,它于 1695 年被废止。)出版商想要重新得到这项权利,但它们实际得到的是与之不同的东西。安娜法令赋予了作者一份版权,并且仅持续 14 年,尽管作者可以续期一次。 - -This was a totally different idea—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. +版权始于印刷机的时代。从 16 世纪开始,英格兰的版权制度开始成为一种审查体系。我相信其最初的本意只是审查新教徒,但其随后改为审查天主教徒,并且很可能也被用于审查许多其他人。根据这一法律,为了发行一本书,您必须得到皇家许可,而这种许可是以永久垄断权的形式被授予的。这种制度我相信一直被允许存在直到 17 世纪 80 年代(根据 Wikipedia 相关词条,它于 1695 年被废止)。出版商想要重新得到这项权利,但它们实际得到的是与之不同的东西。安娜法令赋予了作者一份版权,并且仅持续 14 年,尽管作者可以续期一次。 这是一种完全不同的理念——出版商的永久垄断权变成了作者的临时垄断权。这一理念使版权成为了一种促进创作的方式。 -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. - -当美国宪法被起草时,一些人希望作者被授予版权权利,但这被否决了。与之相反,美国宪法声明国会可以有选择地采纳一种版权法,并且如果真的要有一部版权法,其目标必须是促进进步。换言之,其目标不是版权持有人或者与他们进行交易的其他人的利益,而是为了公众的利益。版权必须仅仅持续一段有限的时间;而出版商一直都在盼望我们忘记这一点。 - -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. +起草美国宪法时,一些人希望作者能被授予版权权利,但这被否决了。与之相反,美国宪法声明国会可以有选择地采纳一种版权法,并且如果真的要有一部版权法,其目标必须是促进进步。换言之,其目标不是版权持有人或者与他们进行交易的其他人的利益,而是为了公众的利益。版权必须仅仅持续一段有限的时间;而出版商一直都在盼望我们忘记这一点。 这里,我们有了关于版权的这样一种理念,它是一种约束出版商的行业规范,由作者所控制,并且被设计为最终能够为公众带来利益。它能够以这种方式发挥作用,由于它并不限制读者。 -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. - 在印刷时代的最初几个世纪,我相信直到 18 世纪 90 年代还是这样,大部分读者仍然采用手抄方式进行复制,由于他们买不起印刷的副本。从未有人期望版权法变成行业规范以外的东西,它的本意是约束出版商。正因为此,它容易被强制执行、不会引起争议、并且可以认为是对社会有益的。 -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—you go to a bookstore and say, “Where do these copies come from?” -You don’t have to invade everybody’s home and everybody’s computer to do -that. - 它是容易强制执行的,由于它只需针对出版商强制执行。并且想要找出未经许可的出版商也是容易的——您可以前往一家书店并且说:“这些副本来自哪里?”您无需入侵某人的住宅或者某人的计算机以实现这一目的。 -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. - 它不会引起争议,由于读者并未被限制,他们无需担心什么。从理论上说,他们被禁止从事出版,但由于他们不是出版商,并且没有印刷机可用,他们无论如何不能从事出版。而在他们实际上可以做的事情当中,他们并未受到什么限制。 -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. - 它可以被认为是有益的,由于根据版权法的概念,公众所出让的是一种他们所不能行使的、仅存在于理论上的权利。作为回报,他们从更多的作品中得到了好处。 -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. - 现在,如果您出让的是一些您没有任何办法使用的东西,而得到的回报是一些您可以使用的东西,这是一笔有利的交易。不论您是否能够通过其他方式得到一笔更加划算的交易,那是另外一个问题,但至少这是一笔不亏的交易。 -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—another advance in copying technology that makes copying more -efficient, and once again not uniformly so. - 因此,如果现在仍然处在印刷机时代,我想我不会抱怨版权法。但是,印刷机时代正在逐步让位于计算机网络时代——复制技术的另一次革命,它使得复制更加高效,同时也更加不那么具有一致性。 -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. - 这是我们曾经在印刷机时代拥有的东西:批量复制非常高效,而一次复制一本时仍然和古代一样慢。数字技术为我们带来了这些:它们都得到了提升,然而一次一本的复制方式所得到的效率提升最大。 -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. - 我们由此来到了一种更像古代世界的境地,彼时一次复制一本的行为相对于批量复制并不显得非常低效(困难),它只是略微低效,但它的成本足够低,以至于数以亿计的人们都能够进行这样的复制操作。想想看有多少人可以不时地烧录光盘(CD),即使是在欠发达的国家。您可能没有一台 CD 刻录机,不过您可以前往一家可提供此服务的商店。 -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. - 这意味着版权不再像过去那样适应技术的发展。即使版权法中的词句保持不变,它不会再产生与之前相同的效果。此时的版权不再是一种由作者控制的针对出版商的行业规范,并且由此使公众受益。它已经成为了主要由出版商控制,以作者之名对公众的限制。 -In other words, it’s tyranny. It’s intolerable and we can’t allow it to -continue this way. - 换言之,这是一种暴政,这是不可容忍的,我们决不能允许它以这种方式发展下去。 -As a result of this change, \[copyright\] is no longer easy to enforce, -no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial. - 由于这种性质上的转变,版权不再容易被强制执行、不再没有争议、也不再有益。 -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. - -它不再容易强制执行,由于现在是那些出版商想要针对每个人强制执行。而要达到这一目的,需要严酷的措施、德拉古式的严厉刑罚、对隐私的侵犯以及废除我们关于公平的基本理念。目前看来,他们将会在发动“消灭分享的战争”的道路上走多远,一时还看不到界限。 - -It’s no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in several -countries whose basic platform is “freedom to share.” +它不再容易强制执行,由于现在是那些出版商想要针对每个人强制执行。而要达到这一目的,需要严酷的措施、德拉古式的严厉刑罚、对隐私的侵犯以及废除我们关于公平的基本理念。目前看来,他们将会在发动“消灭分享的战争”道路上走多远,一时还看不到界限。 它不再没有争议。在一些国家已经出现了这样一些政党,其基本立场是“分享自由”。 -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. - 它也不再有益,由于我们曾经在概念上出让(由于那时我们不能行使它们)的自由现在是我们可以行使的了。它们是那么地重要,以至于我们现在想要行使它们。 -What would a democratic government do in this situation? - 那么,一个民主政府在这种情况下应当做些什么呢? -It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “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.” 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. - -它应当减少版权权力。它应当说:“我们在以我们的公民之名进行的交易中出让的那部分自由是现在他们所需要的,这是不可容忍的。我们必须改变这一切;我们不能轻易出让这种至关重要的自由。”我们可以如此衡量民主的欠缺,通过考察世界各国政府所做出与民主背道而驰的事情的倾向性,即它们在本应减少版权权力的时候反而不断延伸版权权力。 - -One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see -pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer. +它应当减少版权权力。它应当说:“我们在以公民之名进行的交易中出让的那部分自由是现在他们所需要的,这是不可容忍的。我们必须改变这一切;我们不能轻易出让这种至关重要的自由。”我们可以如此衡量民主的欠缺,通过考察世界各国政府所做出与民主背道而驰事情的倾向性,即它们在本应减少版权权力的时候反而不断延伸版权权力。 一个例子是版权的时间尺度。放眼全世界,我们看到各种压力以使得版权持续时间更长、更长、更长。 -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. - -一波此类事件于 1998 年发生在美国。对于过去和将来的作品的版权期限都延长了 20 年。我不明白他们怎样才能使得那些活跃于 20 世纪 20 至 30 年代的已经去世或者年迈的作家相信,通过在今天延长他们的作品的版权能够促使他们在当时创作更多的作品。如果他们拥有一台可用于在当时通知他们的时光机器,他们也从未使用过它。我们的历史教材也从未说过在 20 世纪 20 年代曾经发生过文科创作活力的爆发式增长,由于当时所有的艺术家预知他们的作品的版权将会在 1998 年被延长 20 年。 - -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—if it’s a -work made for hire—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. +一波此类事件于 1998 年发生在美国。对于过去和将来的作品的版权期限都延长了 20 年。我不明白他们怎样才能使得那些活跃于 20 世纪 20 至 30 年代的已经去世或者年迈的作家相信,通过在今天延长他们的作品的版权能够促使他们在当时创作更多的作品。如果他们拥有一台可用于在当时通知他们的时光机器,他们也从未使用过它。我们的历史教材也从未说过,由于当时所有的艺术家已预知他们的作品版权将会在 1998 年被延长 20 年,所以导致在 20 世纪 20 年代曾经发生过文科创作活力的爆发式增长。 为未来的作品延长 20 年的版权期限将会说服人们为创作这些作品付出更多努力。这在理论上是可信的,但这不能说服那些有理性的人们,由于在未来 75 年——如果这篇作品是用于出租的——如果该作品拥有一位个人版权持有人,可能还会更长一些,在此基础上额外增加的 20 年版权期限的存在价值将会大打折扣,其存在价值小到不能说服任何有理性的人们为此去做一些不同的事情。任何想要宣称事情并非如此的商业公司应当被要求出示它在未来 75 年中的财务状况表,然而它们当然做不到这一点,由于它们当中没有一家会真正看问题看得那么远。 -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. - 这条法律的真正原因,以及驱使不同的商业公司向美国国会购买这条法律(国会在很大程度上有权决定法律)的原因在于它们已经拥有使其大大得利的垄断权,并且想让这种垄断权持续下去。 -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. - 例如,迪士尼意识到米老鼠首次出现的那部电影将会在几年内进入公有领域,然后任何人都可以自由地绘制相同的角色以用于其他作品。迪士尼不希望这件事发生。此前,迪士尼曾经从公有领域借鉴了很多东西供自己使用,但它决定永远也不向公有领域做出哪怕是最微薄的回馈。于是迪士尼买来了这条法律,我们称之为米老鼠版权法案。 -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: “perpetual copyright on the -installment plan.” 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. - 电影公司说它们想要永久版权,但是美国宪法不会让它们以官方的方式得到它。于是它们想出了一种方式以便以非官方形式达到同样的结果:“永久版权无限续期方案”。每隔 20 年,它们会将版权期限再次延长 20 年。因此,在任意给定的时间,对于任意给定的作品,都存在这样一个日期,它们应当在此日期进入公有领域。但是,这个日期就如同明日复明日,永远不会到来。当您等到那一天的时候,它们又将其延后了,除非我们能够在下一次阻止它们这样做。 -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? - -以上这些是一个方面,即版权期限的方面。但是更重要的一个方面是宽度:即版权将会覆盖对于作品的哪些方面的使用。 +以上这些是一个方面,即版权期限的方面。但是更重要的一个方面是宽度:即版权会覆盖作品在哪些方面的使用。 -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. +在印刷机时代,版权不应覆盖一篇作品的所有应用场景。由于版权所管制的某些应用同时也是一系列更宽泛的未受管制应用中的一些例外。您很自然地被许可利用您某本书的副本去做某些特定的事情。 -在印刷机时代,版权不应覆盖一篇作品的所有应用场景。由于版权所管制的某些应用同时也是一系列更宽泛的未受管制的应用中的一些例外。您很自然地被许可利用您的某本书的副本去做某些特定的事情。 +现在,出版商有了这样的理念,它们可以使得我们的计算机背叛我们,并且利用它们的绝对控制权攫取已发布作品所有使用的可能性。它们想要建立一种按次付费点播的通用规则。它们正在通过数字限制管理(DRM)来实现这一点——软件的功能被故意设计为限制用户。而且计算机本身也通常被设计为限制用户。 -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)—the intentional features of -software that’s designed to restrict the user. And often the computer -itself is designed to restrict the user. +公众首次见识到它的方式是通过数码多功能影音光盘(DVD)。保存于 DVD 上的电影通常是加密的,并且其格式是私密的。DVD 阴谋集团保守这一秘密,因为它们宣称任何人想要制造 DVD 播放器必须加入这一阴谋集团,并且承诺保守这一秘密,同时还要承诺设计出的 DVD 播放器必须根据规则限制用户,也就是说,它必须阻止用户做这件事、还有那件事、还有那件事——一系列精准的要求,对我们都是恶意的。 -现在,出版商有了这样的理念,它们可以使得我们的计算机背叛我们,并且利用它们攫取对于已发布作品的所有使用可能的绝对控制权力。它们想要建立一种按次付费点播的通用规则。它们正在通过数字限制管理(DRM)来实现这一点——软件的功能被故意设计为限制用户。而且计算机本身也通常被设计为限制用户。 - -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—a precise set of requirements, -all of which are malicious towards us. - -公众首次见识到它的方式是通过数码多功能影音光盘(DVD)。保存于 DVD 上的电影通常是加密的,并且其格式是私密的。DVD 阴谋集团保守这一秘密,由于它们宣称任何人想要制造 DVD 播放器必须加入这一阴谋集团,并且承诺保守这一秘密,同时还要承诺设计出的 DVD 播放器必须根据规则限制用户,也就是说,它必须阻止用户做这件事、还有那件事、还有那件事——一系列精准的要求,对我们都是恶意的。 - -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, “Since we can’t actually -stop them, we have to make it a crime.” 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. - -虽然花费了一些时间,但随后某些人还是破解了这种私密的格式,并且发布了可用于读取并播放 DVD 上的电影的自由软件。然后出版商说:“既然我们不能在事实上阻止他们,我们必须让这件事成为罪行。”它们于 1998 年在美国利用数字千年版权法案(DMCA)开始如此做,这一法案对能实现上述功能的软件强制实施了审查。 - -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. +虽然花费了一些时间,但随后某些人还是破解了这种私密的格式,并且发布了可用于读取并播放 DVD 电影的自由软件。然后出版商说:“既然我们不能在事实上阻止他们,我们必须让这件事成为罪行。”它们于 1998 年在美国利用数字千年版权法案(DMCA)开始这么做,这一法案对能实现上述功能的软件强制实施了审查。 因此,这一类特定的自由软件被诉诸法庭案例。它在美国的分发被禁止;美国对其实施了审查。 -The movie companies are well aware that they can’t really make that -program disappear—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. - 电影公司意识到它们不能真正使得那个程序彻底消失——它仍然很容易被搜索到。于是它们设计出了另一套加密系统,并且希望它更难被破解,它被称为高级访问信息系统(AACS),或者“战斧”。 -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 “close the analog hole.” *\[Stallman takes off his glasses.\]* Here’s -one and here’s another, that they’d like to poke out -permanently.[(1)](#FOOT1) - -AACS 阴谋集团为所有播放器制定了细致的规则。例如在 2011 年,它将会禁止模拟视频输出。因此所有视频输出将必须是数字式的,它们将会把信号以加密形式传输到一台特别设计为使这些内容对用户保持私密的显示器上。那是一种恶意硬件。它们宣称如此做的目的是“修补模拟漏洞”。(Stallman 摘下眼镜)这里有一个,那里还有一个,而它们想让这些漏洞永久消失[(1)](#FOOT1)。 - -How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they’re not -secret—they have web sites. The AACS web site 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. +AACS 阴谋集团为所有播放器制定了细致的规则。例如在 2011 年,它将会禁止模拟视频输出。因此所有视频输出将必须是数字式的,它们将会把信号以加密形式传输到一台特别设计为使这些内容对用户保持私密的显示器上。那是一种恶意硬件。它们宣称如此做的目的是“修补模拟漏洞”(*Stallman 摘下眼镜*)。这里有一个,那里还有一个,而它们想让这些漏洞永久消失[^1]。 我是如何知道这些阴谋的呢?其原因是它们并不是秘密——它们有其官方网站。AACS 网站骄傲地展示了生产商必须签署的霸王条款,这就是我之所以会知道这些限制条件。它还骄傲地展示了共同建立了这一阴谋集团的商业公司的名字,包括微软、苹果、英特尔、索尼、迪士尼、IBM 等。 -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. - 这些公司所设计的阴谋旨在限制公众对技术的访问,这应当作为一项重罪被起诉,就像操纵价格的阴谋那样,只是这比操纵价格更坏而已。因此,这种罪行的刑期应当更长。但是,那些公司信心满满,由于政府站在它们那边共同压制我们。它们丝毫不担心可能会因为这些阴谋而被起诉,这就是它们为何甚至不屑于掩饰这一点的原因。 -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. +通常,DRM 是由一些公司组成的阴谋集团所实施的。有时一家单独的公司也能这么做,但通常这需要在技术公司和出版商之间达成某种阴谋,因此它几乎总是阴谋。 -通常,DRM 是由一些公司组成的阴谋集团所实施的。有时一家单独的公司也能如此做,但通常这需要在技术公司和出版商之间达成某种阴谋,因此它几乎总是阴谋。 - -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. - -它们认为无人能够破解 AACS,但是大约在 3 年半之前,某人发布了一款可以解密那种格式的自由软件。然而,这是完全无用的,由于如果您想要运行它,您需要知道它的密钥。 - -And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with -32 hex digits above them, and I wondered, “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.” +它们认为无人能够破解 AACS,但是大约在 3 年半之前,某人发布了一款可以解密那种格式的自由软件。然而,这是完全无用的,因为如果您想要运行它,您需要知道它的密钥。 然后在 6 个月后,我看到了一幅照片,里面有两只可爱的小狗,每只小狗身上有 32 位的十六进制数,我当时觉得奇怪:“为何将这两样东西放在一起?我怀疑这些十六进制数是否可能是某个重要的密钥,而某人可能是将这些十六进制数和小狗放在一起,希望人们复制这张小狗的照片,由于它们是那么可爱。这也许能够保护该密钥免遭被抹除的厄运。” -And that’s what it was—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. - 事实上,它就是——破解“战斧”的密钥。人们发布它,然后网站编辑删除它,由于现在很多国家的法律动员他们对这类信息实施审查。它再次被发布,他们又将其删除;最后他们放弃了,这组密钥在两周之内被发布到了 70 多万个网站上。 -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. - -这是公众对于 DRM 的不满的一次大规模爆发。但这并未赢得这场战争,由于出版商更换了密钥。不仅如此,对于高清 DVD(HD DVD),这种方式足以破解其 DRM,但对于蓝光光盘(Blu-ray)则不行。蓝光光盘拥有一个额外层级的 DRM,至今没有自由软件可以破解它,这意味着您必须将蓝光光盘看做某种与您自己的自由完全不兼容的东西。它们是您所不可能与之共存的敌人,至少对于我们当前的知识水平是如此。 +这是公众对 DRM 不满的一次大规模爆发。但这并未赢得这场战争,由于出版商更换了密钥。不仅如此,对于高清 DVD(HD DVD),这种方式足以破解其 DRM,但对于蓝光光盘(Blu-ray)则不行。蓝光光盘拥有一个额外层级的 DRM,至今没有自由软件可以破解它,这意味着您必须将蓝光光盘看做某种与您自己的自由完全不兼容的东西。它们是您所不可能与之共存的敌人,至少对于我们当前的知识水平是如此。 -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 \[of these\]—I don’t -have any encrypted DVDs, I won’t take them. - -永远不要接受任何被设计为用于攻击您的自由的产品。如果您没有可用于播放 DVD 的自由软件,您必须不要购买或者租用任何 DVD,或者以礼物的形式接受它们,除非是稀有的未加密的 DVD,并且确实存在少数这样的东西。我确实用有几片——但我没有任何加密的 DVD,我不会设法获得它们。 - -So this is how things stand in video, but we’ve also seen DRM in music. +永远不要接受任何被设计为用于攻击您自由的产品。如果您没有可用于播放 DVD 的自由软件,您必须不要购买或者租用任何 DVD,或者以礼物的形式接受它们,除非是稀有的未加密的 DVD,并且确实存在少数这样的东西。我确实拥有几片——但我没有任何加密的 DVD,我不会获得它们。 以上这些就是视频方面的情况,但我们也已经遇到了音乐中的 DRM。 -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. - -例如,大约 10 年前,我们开始见到一种形似音乐光盘(CD)的东西,但是它们的烧录方式和 CD 并不十分相似。它们并不遵守标准。我们称之为“损坏的光盘”,它们所遵循的理念是它们可以用某种音频播放器进行播放,但不可能在计算机上读取。这些不同的方法具有不同的问题。 - -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. - -最终,索尼想出了一个奸诈的主意。它将一个程序存储在盘片上,于是当您将盘片放入计算机中时,该盘片将会安装该程序。这个程序被设计为像病毒一样取得系统的控制权。它称为 root kit,这意味着它拥有破解系统安全措施的能力,使得它可以将软件植入系统深处,并且修改系统中的不同组成部分。 - -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—code that had been released under the GNU -General Public License. - -例如,它修改了您可用于查看系统状态以获知某个软件是否存在的命令,因此它隐藏了自己的存在。它修改了您可用于删除它的某些文件的命令,因此这些命令并不能真正删除它们。现在,所有这些都是严重的罪行,但这还不是索尼所犯下的唯一罪行,由于该软件同时包含自由软件代码——这些代码是以 GNU 通用公共许可证(GNU GPL)发布的。 - -Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says, “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.” +例如,大约 10 年前,我们开始见到一种形似音乐光盘(CD)的东西,但是它们的烧录方式和 CD 并不相似。它们不遵守标准。我们称之为“损坏的光盘”,它们所遵循的理念是它们可以用某种音频播放器进行播放,但不可能在计算机上读取。这些不同的方法具有不同的问题。 -现在,GNU GPL 是一种左版许可证,这如同说:“是的,您拥有将此代码整合到其他程序中的自由,但如果您决定如此做,您将此代码整合到其中的整个程序也必须以相同的许可证作为自由软件发布。并且您必须保证用户可获得源代码,以及为了保证他们对于自己的权利拥有知情权,您必须在他们得到软件的同时为他们提供一份此许可证的副本。” +最终,索尼想出了一个奸诈的主意。它将一个程序存储在盘片上,于是当您将盘片放入计算机中时,该盘片将会安装该程序。这个程序被设计为像病毒一样取得系统的控制权。它被称为“root kit”,这意味着它拥有破解系统安全措施的能力,使得它可以将软件植入系统深处,并且修改系统。 -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. +例如,它修改了您可用于查看系统状态以获知某个软件是否存在的命令,因此它隐藏了自己的存在。它修改了您可用于删除它的某些文件的命令,因此这些命令并不能真正删除它们。现在,所有这些都是严重的罪行,但这还不是索尼所犯下的唯一罪行,由于该软件同时包含自由软件代码——这些代码是以 GNU 通用公共许可证(GNU GPL)发布的。 -索尼并未完全遵守这些。这属于商业版权侵犯行为,是一种重罪。这两种行为都是重罪,但索尼并未因此被起诉,由于政府明白,政府和法律的目的是维护这些公司的凌驾于用户之上的权力,而非以任何方式帮助用户捍卫他们的自由。 +现在,GNU GPL 是一种左版(copyleft)许可证,这如同说:“是的,您拥有将此代码整合到其他程序中的自由,但如果您决定这么做,您将此代码整合到其中的整个程序也必须以相同的许可证作为自由软件发布。并且您必须保证用户可获得源代码,以及为了保证他们对于自己的权利拥有知情权,您必须在他们得到软件的同时为他们提供一份此许可证的副本。” -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. +索尼并未完全遵守这些。这属于商业版权侵犯行为,是一种重罪。这两种行为都是重罪,但索尼并未因此被起诉,由于政府明白,政府和法律的目的是维护这些公司凌驾于用户之上的权力,而非以任何方式帮助用户捍卫他们的自由。 不堪忍受的人们起诉了索尼。然而他们犯了一个错误。他们并未将谴责集中于这一阴谋的邪恶目的之上,而是仅仅局限于索尼将其次要罪恶付诸实现的不同方法上。于是索尼化解了这些法律诉讼,并承诺在未来继续侵犯我们的自由的时候,它将不会再次采用这些方法。 -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—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. - -事实上,这种“损坏的光盘”的阴谋并不是非常地坏,由于只要您不用 Windows,它不会对您产生任何影响。甚至即使您正在使用 Windows,在您的键盘上有这样一个键——如果您每次都记着按住它,该盘片就不会安装那个软件。但是,每次都记着按住那个键显然不是一件容易做到的事情;您总有一天会疏忽。这展示了我们必须去设法应对的某种事情。 - -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. - -幸运的是,音乐所受的 DRM 威胁正在减少。即使是大型唱片公司也会销售不带 DRM 的下载版。但是,我们看到了又一波试图为电子书强行施加 DRM 的攻势。 +事实上,这种“损坏的光盘”阴谋并不是非常地坏,由于只要您不用 Windows,它不会对您产生任何影响。甚至即使您正在使用 Windows,在您的键盘上有这样一个键——如果您每次都记着按住它,该盘片就不会安装那个软件。但是,每次都记着按住那个键显然不是一件容易做到的事情;您总有一天会疏忽。这意味我们必须去设法应对的某种事情。 -You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of -book readers—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—we’ve -got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that -we’re doing.) +幸运的是,音乐所受的 DRM 威胁正在减少。即使是大型唱片公司也会销售不带 DRM 的下载版。但是,我们又看到了一波试图为电子书强行施加 DRM 的攻势。 -您应该看到了,出版商想要剥夺读者的传统阅读自由——诸如从公共图书馆借阅;或者将书借给朋友;或者将书卖给旧书商店;或者使用现金匿名购书等自由。(这是我购书的唯一方式——我们必须抵御各种诱惑,不让当权者知道我们所做的每一件事情。) - -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. +您应该看到了,出版商想要剥夺读者传统阅读的自由——诸如从公共图书馆借阅;或者将书借给朋友;或者将书卖给旧书商店;或者使用现金匿名购书等自由(这是我购书的唯一方式——我们必须抵御各种诱惑,不让当权者知道我们所做的每一件事情)。 甚至是您想要保有该书任意长的时间,或者阅读该书任意多次的自由,它们也计划剥夺。 -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—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. - 它们通过 DRM 的方式做到这一点。它们知道有那么多的人读书,如果直接剥夺他们的这些自由,他们将会强烈反对,因此它们不认为自己能够简单地通过购买一条法律来特定地废除这些自由——这将会招致太多反对。民主是有缺陷的,但有时人们也能要求得到某些东西。于是它们想出了一种两步走的方案。 -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. - 首先,剥夺电子书的这些阅读自由,然后,迫使用户从纸版书转向电子书。它们已经成功做到了第一步。 -In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in -New Zealand, that was part of the Copyright Act \[of 2008\]; censorship -on software that can break DRM was part of that law. That’s an unjust -provision; it’s got to be repealed. - 在美国,它们通过 DMCA 做到了这一点,而在新西兰,这是版权法案(2008 年)的一部分,即对于可用于破解 DRM 的软件实施审查。这是一种不公平的条款,它应当被废除。 -The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to -e-books; that didn’t go so well. 第二步是说服人们从纸版书转向电子书;这项进展并不十分顺利。 -One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of e-books -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, “Only if -this e-book is published without encryption, without DRM.” The publisher -wouldn’t go along with that, and I just stuck to it—I said no. -Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this—in fact -willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four -freedoms—so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on -paper. - -2001 年,一家出版商想出了一种方法,如果它能够以我的传记开头,它的系列电子书将会变得非常流行。于是它们找到一位作者,后者询问我是否愿意合作,我说:“除非该电子书以未加密并且无 DRM 的形式发布。”出版商不愿意接受这一条,而我则强烈要求这样——我最终拒绝了。最后我们找到了另一家出版商,它愿意如此做——事实上是希望使用自由许可证发布该书以赋予您四项基本自由——于是该书最终出版,并且售出了很多份纸版副本。 +2001 年,一家出版商想出了一种方法,如果它能够以我的传记开头,它的系列电子书将会变得非常流行。于是它们找到一位作者,后者询问我是否愿意合作,我说:“除非该电子书以未加密并且无 DRM 的形式发布。”出版商不愿意接受这一条,而我则强烈要求这样——我最终拒绝了。最后我们找到了另一家出版商,它愿意如此——事实上是希望使用自由许可证发布该书以赋予您四项基本自由——于是该书最终出版,并且售出了很多份纸版副本。 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, “They will try |