What's wrong with copyright?有什么问题与版权？
October 26th, 2009 · by David Bradley >> 09年10月26日由大卫布拉德利“·” 5 Comments 5评论
Without copyright protection creative types would not create.如果没有版权保护的创造型人才，就不会形成。 That, apparently, is one of the defenses put forward by the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA.这显然是一个防御提出了RIAA和MPAA的喜欢前进。 These organizations chase after file sharers and attempt to gain millions of dollars of recompense each year from people who swap music and movie torrents.这些文件共享后，并试图从中获益，以报答人民每年数百万美元的组织追逐谁交换音乐和电影种子。 But isn't this defense simply justification for a whole new industry that could outgrow the music and movie industries themselves?但是，这不只是为了防御一个全新的产业，恶性循环，音乐和电影业本身的理由？
It's fairly well documented that many recording artists in the past were offered draconian record company contracts and received little compensation for their creativity compared with the company profit lines.这是相当详细记载，在过去的许多唱片公司的艺术家们提供了苛刻的唱片公司的合同，并听取了他们的创意与小的赔偿，该公司盈利线。 There's also the almost forgotten fact that decades of music charts were hyped as company A&R staff bought up their label's records to boost chart placements.同时，这也几乎被人遗忘事实音乐排行榜20年作为公司的A＆R人员大肆宣传的买下了自己的品牌的记录提高图表展示位置。 There's also the pricing concept associated with a manufactured music disk and accompanying liner notes and the virtual download version of an “album” and how that somehow should cost the same instore and online.另外还有定价的概念与生产相关的音乐盘和所附班轮说明和虚拟的“相册”下载版本，以及如何，不知怎的，费用应在同一店内和网上。
Brazilian musician Denis Borges Barbosa who recently published a critique of the state of copyright in the world of music, also points out that the prime defense of copyright protecting creativity is a fallacy.巴西音乐家丹尼斯博尔赫斯巴博萨最近公布谁在音乐世界中的版权状态的批判，也指出，保护版权的创造力总理防御是一种谬论。 In his critique he suggests that we take a look at the plight of composer-musicians stretching back to the Baroque period to see just how ludicrous a claim that is.在他的批评，他建议我们采取在作曲家的困境看，音乐家可以追溯到巴洛克时期看多么荒唐可笑的索赔是。
Eighteenth century composer Georg Philipp Telemann, for instance, is the most prolific composer in history. 18世纪作曲家格奥尔格菲利普泰勒曼，例如，是历史上最多产的作曲家。 A lawyer by training (oh, the irony) he was simultaneously a public servant, a publisher, a concert promoter, a conductor, and a performer, and wrote some 8000 opi.由培训律师（哦，讽刺），他是公职人员，同时，出版，音乐会发起人，指挥和表演，并写了一些8000奥皮。 There was no copyright law to protect his works.没有著作权法保护的作品。 Likewise, Vivaldi composed over 500 concerti, 43 operas, published 100 opi.同样，维瓦尔第协奏曲创作了超过500个，43个剧目100奥皮出版。 Handel (who also started law school) staged 50 of his operas and 23 oratorios.韩德尔（谁也开始法学院）举办他的歌剧和23清唱剧50。 Beethoven produced 849 opi (eight concerti and nine symphonies).贝多芬生产的849奥皮（八协奏曲和9交响曲）。 Mozart and Bach we incredibly creative and prolific too.莫扎特，巴赫，我们难以置信的创造性和多产了。
Barbosa suggests that it was the total lack of any copyright protection that made these famous names such workaholics; they had to slave away at their staves simply to keep ahead of the competition.巴博萨暗示，这是任何版权保护，使这些著名的工作狂，完全是没有名字，他们于壁的奴隶离开只是为了保持领先的竞争。 However, by the twentieth century, long after copyright laws had been laid down, the likes of Gershwin and Bernstein received amazing plaudits, awards, and no little reward for much more modest levels of musical output.然而，到二十世纪，著作权法后不久，已制订了，喜欢的盖希文和伯恩斯坦得到惊人的喝彩，奖励，不输出的音乐更加温和的水平一点回报。
Gershwin wrote a mere 19 classical pieces, 35 Broadway shows and contributed to 22 other plays, and seven films, while Bernstein wrote just three symphonies, two operas and five musicals.格什温说只有19经典作品，35百老汇演出，并促进其他22次，7片，而伯恩斯坦说只有3交响乐，歌剧，五两剧。 All amazing stuff, but not the hundreds or thousands of their classical predecessors.所有的惊人的东西，而不是几百或几千前辈的经典。
It seems that copyright laws, while protecting vested interests have simply stifled creativity.看来，著作权法，同时保护既得利益，根本扼杀创造力。 Looking at the statistics for modern composers Bernstein, Gershwin, and their contemporaries and comparing them with those of just one Telemann or Vivaldi suggests that the public has been massively deprived of the full potential of such composers.在对伯恩斯坦，盖希文，和他们的同时代人，再比对只有一个泰勒曼或他们维瓦尔第的现代作曲家的统计数字看表明，公众的大量此类作曲家的全部潜力被剥夺。 A lack of copyright protection may have seen Bernstein et al working even harder and producing an even greater musical legacy.版权保护的缺乏可能看到伯恩斯坦等人更加努力的工作和生产更大的音乐遗产。
“The example of the 18th century composers who thrived both in cultural and market terms sheds some doubt on the dogma that without effective copyright the output of symbolic goods would diminish on a significant level,” concludes Barbosa.他说：“18世纪作曲家谁的文化和蓬勃发展的市场条件有以下阐释教条疑问，如果没有有效的版权的象征性商品产出将减少其对一级的一个重要的例子，”总结巴博萨。 He suggests that a system that sidesteps intellectual property rights and copyright [Creative Commons, Copyleft, Open Source, for instance] could be more conducive to high levels of creativity.他建议的制度，避开知识产权和版权[风景，copyleft的，开放源码例如，]可以更有利于创造力的高水平。
Of course, such a suggestion would remove the members of the RIAA and MPAA from the equation, leaving the artists and creators with a direct connection to their listening and watching public.当然，这样的建议将删除方程RIAA和美国电影协会的成员，留下了直接连接到他们的聆听和观看市民的艺术家和创作者。 Perish the thought that artists might be able to talk direct to their public with no intermediaries to cream off a percentage.灭亡的思想，艺术家也许可以交谈过的百分比没有中介奶油直接到他们的公开。
Denis Borges Barbosa (2010). 丹尼斯博尔赫斯巴尔博萨（2010年）。 On artefacts and middlemen: a musician's note on the economics of copyright International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 4 (1/2), 23-44 在文物和中间商：一个音乐家的说明关于版权的国际经济学杂志知识产权管理，4（1 / 2），23-44
5 responses so far ↓ 5答复迄今↓
Noam Gagliardi Rabinovich 诺姆加利亚尔迪拉比诺维奇 // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:46 pm 下午/ / 2009年10月26日在8:46
I have to agree.我同意。 I'm just switched majors from Literature/Writing to physics/biology in part because I was questioning whether I wanted to be a “professional artist.”我只是从文学转向专业/写入物理/生物部分，因为我怀疑我是否想成为“专业的艺术家。”
I think the internet is giving rise to a new Renaissance, where artists are once again connected with the audience, and create for the love of art, or for ambition, as opposed to cranking out one mediocre novel after the next so the publisher gets off my ass.我认为，互联网是引起一场新的复兴，是艺术家们再次与观众连接，并为对艺术的热爱，或野心，而不是手摇出一个平庸的小说后，下一个，出版社因此获得过我的屁股。
If Chaucer had a day job, and the time to write one of the most ambitious pieces of poetry in the English language, if Cervantes had a day job, and the same for most of the greatest poets and writers… what's our excuse?如果有一天乔瑟工作，时间写的诗最雄心勃勃的英文作品之一，如果塞万提斯了一整天的工作，对于大多数最伟大的诗人和作家...什么是我们的借口呢？
And with sites like “bandcamp”, many artists are returning to the donation system (get it for free, pay as much as you like, if you like).与像“bandcamp”网站，许多艺术家都返回捐赠系统（免费得到它，付出多少你想，如果你喜欢）。 And the file format is lossless so sound quality is no excuse either.和文件格式是无损音质，所以没有任何借口。
I am still on my journey to becoming a writer (haven't dropped my creative writing program), but when the day comes that I feel I have something worth publishing… I still haven't decided if I will go the publisher way.我仍然在我的旅程，成为一名作家（没有减少我的创作写作计划），但是当那一天我觉得我有什么值得出版...我还没有决定是否我会去的发行方式。 I'd most likely offer the ebook as “pay if you want, and send it to your friends”, and a self-published hard copy aside.我想最有可能提供电子书为“如果你想支付，并将其发送给您的朋友”，并自公布的硬拷贝一边。
Self publishing will never bring the sales that a publisher can.自出版永远不会带来的销售，发布可以。 But e-books are still a nascent resource, and many authors are getting positive results.但是，电子书籍仍然是一个新生的资源，和许多作家越来越积极的成果。 Plus, one has 100% control over one's product.此外，一个拥有自己的产品100％的控制。
** **
I think films is a different business.我认为，电影是一个不同的业务。 Movie piracy is wrong because a movie is much bigger than the artists involved.电影盗版是错误的，因为电影是比所涉及的艺术家更大。 — I studied film for a while, and you learn quickly just how much goes behind a movie. -我学了一段时间的电影，你很快就会了解到后面到底有多少电影去。 — from catering, to the technical aspect — even a “small” movie involves a team of many professionals who all need to be payed fair salaries. -从饮食，在技术方面-即使是“小”电影涉及到谁都需要很多专业小组，payed公平的工资。 Film is not a “cheap art” like music or literature; film is extremely expensive, and film piracy is stealing, in my eyes.电影是不是一个“廉价的艺术，如音乐或文学”，电影是非常昂贵，电影盗版窃取，在我的眼睛。
drew3000 drew3000 // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 pm 下午/ / 2009年10月26日在10:01
I would have to agree with Noam, but even in that he's changing his major after rethinking life as a “professional artist” is telling, and surely does speak to the idea of a new Renaissance, perhaps one in which people are famous not for days or minutes but by bandwidth.我会同意诺姆，但即使在他不断变化的反思后，他主要是一个“职业艺术家的生活”是告诉，也一定不会说话到一个新的文艺复兴时期的想法，也许有，也就是人们不著名的天或分钟，但受带宽。 The idea of professional artist in and of itself is changing as are the ideas of professions elsewhere.的专业艺术家的想法本身就是不断变化的职业一样，是其他地方的想法。 Perhaps artistry is now becoming that thing that more people can incorporate into their lives, dispersing it more and thus decomodifying it over time.也许现在已经成为艺术的事情更多的人能够融入他们的生活，更分散，从而decomodifying了一段时间。
CarlT // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm 下午 CarlT / / 09年10月26号在10:12
“I'm just switched majors from Literature/Writing to physics/biology in part because I was questioning whether I wanted to be a “professional artist.”” “我只是从文学转向专业/写入物理/生物部分，因为我怀疑我是否想成为一名”职业艺术家“。”
But you're moving to a field with “publish or perish” behavior, and the authors pay the journals to publish the work.但你移动到一个领域与“出版或消亡”的行为，作者支付期刊出版工作。 Do scientific journals pay authors any royalties?做科技期刊向作者支付任何专利许可费？
Bill // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:36 am / / 2009年10月27日上午在5:36 条例草案
Considering the copyright laws exist because Queen Anne was petitioned by publishers who had nothing to publish; a few publishers owned the publishing rights to the books and no one else could publish anything worthwhile; the turnaround to giving the few major corporations the right to own movies, books and music for eternity (or close to it if the copyright is renewed) is strange.考虑到著作权法的存在是因为安妮女王是谁没有什么出版商出版请愿，一些出版商拥有版权的书籍，也没有人能发布任何有价值的，是否能够使少数大公司对自己的电影的权利好转，书籍和音乐的永恒（或接近，如果版权续期）很奇怪。 If I design and build a chair (or any other product) why can't I refuse to allow anyone but the buyer to sit in it and why can't I refuse to allow anyone to look at it to see how it is made?如果我的设计，建设一个椅子（或任何其他产品）为什么我不能拒绝允许任何人，但买方坐在它，为什么我不能拒绝允许任何人看它，看看它是如何呢？ Why must I work for a living while others live off work that may have taken them a few days?为什么我必须为自己的生活，而其他生活下班，可能要花上几天？ I am sick of the greed of the corporations that own the works of artists.我讨厌的公司认为自己的艺术家的作品贪婪。 They should have no right to hold publishing rights beyond a very limited time!他们应该无权超越举行非常有限的时间出版的权利！ The copyright should be in the hands of the artist and be limited to the time that pays for the effort and offers a reasonable profit.版权应在艺术家的手中，限于时间，支付的努力，并提供合理的利润。
Noam Gagliardi Rabinovich 诺姆加利亚尔迪拉比诺维奇 // Oct 28, 2009 at 6:16 pm 下午/ / 2009年10月28号在6:16
CarlT: In science, publishing is not one's mean of income. CarlT：在科学，出版不是一个人的平均收入。 One makes money by working in research (private funded, or public funded), or teaching, consulting, etc. — publishing in peer reviewed journals is simply the way scientists share and improve ideas and discoveries (hence the “peer reviewed” part).其中一个人在研究工作的钱（私人资助，或公共资助的），或教学，咨询等-发表在同行评审期刊只是科学家共享的方式，提高思想和发现（因此“同行评审”的一部分）。 Once something is discovered in science, nobody “owns” it (unless we're talking about something specific like a piece of technology, of course).一旦事情是在科学发现，没有人“拥有”它（除非我们在谈论一个类似的技术产品的具体过程中，）。 Einstein didn't own relativity or the idea of quanta: in fact, as soon as he discovered these ideas, they were already being changed into things he did not agree with at all (quantum theory, and of course the bomb).爱因斯坦没有自己相对或量子建议：事实上，只要他发现了这些想法，他们已经被改为东西，他不同意在所有（量子理论的，当然炸弹）。
Peer reviewed articles are copyrighted, but the studies themselves may be replicated (and in fact are *supposed to*, in order to make sure that the findings are correct).同行评审的文章的版权，但本身可能被复制（事实上应该是* *，以确保调查结果是正确的研究）。
But even this is changing as better online databases for peer reviewed content are being created, and gaining acceptance.但即便如此改变为更好的在线数据库，同行审查的内容正在建立，并获得接受。 It is possible that in the near future journals such as Nature would be a thing of the past.这是有可能的，如自然杂志不久的将来将是过去的事情。
— -
Bill, — publishing is a double edged sword: publishers make way more money off of a writer's work than the artist himself does, even after costs are taken into account.条例草案-出版是一把双刃剑：出版商利用一个作家的比自己做，即使成本考虑艺术家的工作方式更多的钱了。 But on the other hand, for now at least, there is *no way* any author can sell even close to as much as he can or reach nearly as wide an audience without the help of a publisher.但在另一方面，至少目前，有没有办法* *任何人可以出售，甚至接近和他一样多能接近或达到尽可能广泛的观众没有一个出版商的帮助。
Self publishing is EXTREMELY costly if you want to make any decent sales, and even most of those who do succeed this way eventually turn to big publishers because sales are not even close.自出版是非常昂贵，如果你想什么像样的销售，甚至那些最成功，谁不这样逐渐转向大出版社，因为销售甚至还没有接近。
As far as making money though: when you hear that an author gets a, say, $20 000 advance, what you don't hear is how much of that goes to agents, lawyers, marketing etc.至于赚钱，但：当你听到一个人得到一个，比如说，20元，000之前，你不听，是的多少去代理，律师，市场营销等
Most authors, even relatively well known authors, have day jobs, or make money through teaching and seminars.大多数的作者，即使是相对知名作家，白天有工作，或赚钱，通过教学和研讨会。 The idea of the “professional author” who spends all his day pondering, writes a book every five or so years and owns a house in Europe is a bit of a myth, as it represents probably less than 1% of working authors.在“专业作家”谁所有，他每天花在思考的想法，写一本书，每5年左右，并拥有在欧洲的房子是一个神话位，因为它代表了大概不到1％的工作作家。 There are exceptions, but 90% of published authors don't make enough money off book sales to pay the rent, and off that small percent who do, they usually have to keep up with a demand of 1 or 2 or more books per year, because you still won't be living off the sales of 1 book, even if it did OK.但也有例外，但出版的作者90％不赚图书销售足够的钱付房租，和关闭小百分之谁这样做，他们通常要跟上1或2或更多的需求，每年图书，因为你仍然不会活过一本书的销售，即使它没有确定。
My point was that this could be the end of the “professional author” altogether, but that that wouldn't mean that great writing wouldn't still be produced.我要说的是，这可能是“专业”的作者完全结束，但这一并不意味着伟大的文学作品会不会仍在生产。 Most authors aren't doing it for the money as it is, so with the advent of e-publishing, they will now be able to reach that mass audience (potentially, at least) without having to turn to big publishers.大多数的作者是不是为了钱，因为它是如此的到来，电子出版，现在他们将能够达到这一广大观众（潜在的，至少），而不必求助于大出版商。
Leave a Comment发表评论