What's wrong with copyright?有什麼問題與版權？
October 26th, 2009 · by David Bradley >> 09年10月26日·由大衛布拉德利“” 5 Comments 5評論
Without copyright protection creative types would not create.如果沒有版權保護的創造型人才，就不會形成。 That, apparently, is one of the defenses put forward by the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA.這顯然是對防禦提出的喜歡的RIAA和MPAA的。 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.這些組織追逐文件共享後，企圖獲得數百萬美元的補償，每年從人們誰交換音樂和電影種子。 But isn't this defense simply justification for a whole new industry that could outgrow the music and movie industries themselves?但是，這不是簡單的理由防禦一個全新的產業，惡性循環，音樂和電影業本身？
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.這是相當有案可稽的錄音藝術家，許多在過去被唱片公司提供了嚴厲的合同和很少得到賠償的創造力比公司盈利線。 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.同時，這也幾乎被人遺忘的事實，幾十年的音樂排行榜被大肆宣傳為公司A＆R的工作人員購買了他們的標籤的記錄提高圖表展示位置。 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.另外還有定價的概念與一個磁盤和製造的音樂伴隨班輪說明和下載版的虛擬的“相冊”，以及如何，不知怎的，費用應在同一店內和網上。
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.巴西音樂家丹尼斯博爾赫斯巴博薩誰最近發表了一份批評國家版權在世界上的音樂，也指出，首要的防禦版權保護創意是一個謬論。 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.在他的批評，他建議我們看看在困境作曲家，音樂家可以追溯到巴洛克時期看多麼荒唐可笑的索賠是。
Eighteenth century composer Georg Philipp Telemann, for instance, is the most prolific composer in history. 18世紀作曲家格奧爾格菲利普泰勒曼，例如，是最多產的作曲家的歷史。 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.通過培訓的律師（哦，諷刺），他是公職人員，同時，出版，音樂會發起人，指揮和表演，並寫了一些8000奧皮。 There was no copyright law to protect his works.沒有著作權法保護的作品。 Likewise, Vivaldi composed over 500 concerti, 43 operas, published 100 opi.同樣，維瓦爾第協奏曲創作了超過500個，43個劇目，出版100奧皮。 Handel (who also started law school) staged 50 of his operas and 23 oratorios.韓德爾（誰也開始法學院）舉辦的50他的歌劇和23清唱劇。 Beethoven produced 849 opi (eight concerti and nine symphonies).貝多芬生產的849奧皮（八協奏曲和9交響曲）。 Mozart and Bach we incredibly creative and prolific too.莫扎特，巴赫，我們難以置信的創造性和多產了。
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.巴博薩暗示，這是完全沒有任何版權保護，使得這些著名的名稱，如工作狂，他們不得不離開他們的奴隸暴民只是為了保持領先的競爭。 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，到二十世紀，著作權法後不久，奠定了下來，喜歡的蓋希文和伯恩斯坦得到驚人的喝彩，獎勵，不小的獎勵更為溫和的水平的音樂輸出。
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.格甚溫說只有19經典作品，35百老匯演出，並促進其他22次，7片，而伯恩斯坦說只有3交響樂，歌劇，五兩劇。 All amazing stuff, but not the hundreds or thousands of their classical predecessors.所有的驚人的東西，而不是幾百或上千的經典前輩。
It seems that copyright laws, while protecting vested interests have simply stifled creativity.看來，著作權法，同時保護既得利益，根本扼殺創造力。 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.統計看現代作曲家伯恩斯坦，蓋希文，和他們的同時代人，比較他們與那些只有一個泰勒曼或韋華表明，公眾的大規模剝奪了全部潛力等作曲家的作品。 A lack of copyright protection may have seen Bernstein et al working even harder and producing an even greater musical legacy. A缺乏版權保護可能已經看到伯恩斯坦等人更加努力的工作和生產更大的音樂遺產。
“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. “這個例子的18世紀作曲家無論誰在蓬勃發展的文化和市場棚一些懷疑的教條，沒有有效的版權輸出象徵性商品將減少有顯著的水平，”總結巴博薩。 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.他建議的制度，避開知識產權和版權[風景，copyleft的，開放源碼，例如]可能會更有利於高水平的創造性。
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.當然，這樣的建議將消除成員RIAA和美國電影協會從等式，使藝術家和創作者與直接連接到他們的聆聽和觀看市民。 Perish the thought that artists might be able to talk direct to their public with no intermediaries to cream off a percentage.滅亡的思想，藝術家也許可以直接向他們交談，沒有公開中介奶油引發的百分比。
Denis Borges Barbosa (2010). 丹尼斯博爾赫斯巴爾博薩（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 在文物和中間商：一個音樂家的說明在國際經濟學期刊版權知識產權管理，4（1 / 2），23-44
5 responses so far ↓ 5答复迄今↓
Noam Gagliardi Rabinovich 諾姆加利亞爾迪拉比諾維奇 // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:46 pm / / 2009年10月26日在下午8時46分
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.”我只是從文學轉向專業/寫入物理/生物部分，因為我懷疑我是否想成為“專業的藝術家。”
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.我認為，互聯網是引起一場新的復興，是藝術家們再次與觀眾連接，並為熱愛藝術，或野心，而不是手搖出一個平庸的小說後，下一個，出版社因此獲得過我的屁股。
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?如果有一天喬瑟工作，時間寫一個最雄心勃勃的詩歌作品中的英語，如果有一天塞萬提斯工作，同大多數最偉大的詩人和作家...什麼是我們的藉口？
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).並與網站，例如“bandcamp”，許多藝術家都返回捐贈系統（免費得到它，付出多少你想，如果你喜歡）。 And the file format is lossless so sound quality is no excuse either.和文件格式是無損音質，所以沒有任何藉口。
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，成為一名作家（沒有減少我的創作寫作計劃），但是當那一天我覺得我有什麼值得出版...我還沒有決定是否我會去的發行方式。 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.我想最有可能提供電子書為“如果你想支付，並將其發送給您的朋友”，並自公佈的硬拷貝一邊。
Self publishing will never bring the sales that a publisher can.自出版永遠不會帶來的銷售，發布可以。 But e-books are still a nascent resource, and many authors are getting positive results.但是，電子書籍仍然是一個新生的資源，和許多作家越來越積極的成果。 Plus, one has 100% control over one's product.此外，一個有100％的控制自己的產品。
** **
I think films is a different business.我認為，電影是一個不同的業務。 Movie piracy is wrong because a movie is much bigger than the artists involved.電影盜版是錯誤的，因為電影是遠大於藝術家參與。 — I studied film for a while, and you learn quickly just how much goes behind a movie. -我學電影了一段時間，你很快就會了解到究竟有多少電影後面去。 — from catering, to the technical aspect — even a “small” movie involves a team of many professionals who all need to be payed fair salaries. -從飲食，在技術方面-即使是“小”電影涉及很多專業人士團隊誰，都應當作為payed公平的工資。 Film is not a “cheap art” like music or literature; film is extremely expensive, and film piracy is stealing, in my eyes.電影是不是一個“廉價的藝術”如音樂或文學，電影是非常昂貴，電影盜版竊取，在我的眼睛。
drew3000 drew3000 // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 pm / / 2009年10月26日在下午10時零一分
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.我會同意諾姆，但即使在他改變他的生活主要反思後作為“專業畫家”是告訴，也一定不會說話的理念，新的文藝復興，也許有，也就是人們不幾天聞名或分鐘，但受帶寬。 The idea of professional artist in and of itself is changing as are the ideas of professions elsewhere.這個想法的專業藝術家本身也有所變化，是思想的專業別處。 Perhaps artistry is now becoming that thing that more people can incorporate into their lives, dispersing it more and thus decomodifying it over time.也許現在已經成為藝術的事情更多的人能夠融入他們的生活，更分散，因此decomodifying隨著時間。
CarlT // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm CarlT / / 2009年10月26日在10:12 pm
“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.”” “我只是從文學轉向專業/寫入物理/生物部分，因為我懷疑我是否想成為一名”職業藝術家“。”
But you're moving to a field with “publish or perish” behavior, and the authors pay the journals to publish the work.但你移動到一個領域與“出版或消亡”的行為，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專利許可費？
Bill // Oct 27, 2009 at 5:36 am 比爾 / / 2009年10月27號在上午05時36分
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.考慮到著作權法的存在是因為安妮女王是由出版商請願誰無關，出版，一些出版商擁有版權的書籍，也沒有人能發布任何有價值;的周轉給予少數大公司的權利，自己的電影，書籍和音樂的永恆（或接近，如果版權續期）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?如果我的設計，建設一個椅子（或任何其他產品）為什麼我不能拒絕允許任何人，但買方坐在它，為什麼我不能拒絕允許任何人看它，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?為什麼我必須為自己的生活，而其他生活下班，可能要花上幾天？ I am sick of the greed of the corporations that own the works of artists.我厭倦了貪婪的公司認為自己的藝術家的作品。 They should have no right to hold publishing rights beyond a very limited time!他們應該沒有權利擁有版權超出了非常有限的時間！ 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.版權應在藝術家的手中，並限於支付時間的努力，並提供合理的利潤。
Noam Gagliardi Rabinovich 諾姆加利亞爾迪拉比諾維奇 // Oct 28, 2009 at 6:16 pm / / 09年10月28日在下午6點16
CarlT: In science, publishing is not one's mean of income. CarlT：在科學，出版不是一個人的平均收入。 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).一個賺錢的工作，在研究（私人資助，或公共資助的），或教學，諮詢等-發表在同行評審期刊只是科學家共享的方式，提高思想和發現（因此“同行評審”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).一旦事情是在科學發現，沒有人“擁有”（除非我們在談論一些具體的事情像一塊技術，當然）。 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).愛因斯坦相對論沒有自己的思想或量子：事實上，當他發現這些想法，他們已經被改為東西，他不同意在所有（量子理論，當然炸彈）。
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).同行評審的文章的版權，但研究本身可能被複製（事實上應該是* *，以確保調查結果是正確的）。
But even this is changing as better online databases for peer reviewed content are being created, and gaining acceptance.但即便如此也有所變化，更好的在線數據庫，供同行審查內容正在建立，並獲得接受。 It is possible that in the near future journals such as Nature would be a thing of the past.很可能在不久的將來，如Nature雜誌將是過去的事情。
— -
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.條例草案-出版是一把雙刃劍：出版商讓出更多的錢過一個作家的工作比藝術家本人沒有，即使在成本考慮。 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，有沒有辦法* *任何人可以出售，甚至接近和他一樣多能接近或達到盡可能廣泛的觀眾沒有幫助出版者。
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.自出版是非常昂貴，如果你想什麼像樣的銷售，甚至那些最成功誰這樣做，最終轉向大出版社，因為銷售甚至還沒有接近。
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.至於賺錢，但：當你聽到一個人得到一個，比如說，20元，000之前，你不聽，是的多少去代理，律師，市場營銷等
Most authors, even relatively well known authors, have day jobs, or make money through teaching and seminars.大多數的作者，即使是相對知名作家，白天有工作，或賺錢，通過教學和研討會。 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.這個想法的“專業作家”誰所有，他每天花在思考，寫一本書，每5年左右，並擁有一所房子，在歐洲是有點神話，因為它代表了大概不到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.也有例外，但90％的出版作者沒有作出足夠的錢來過圖書銷售付房租，和關閉小百分之誰這樣做，他們通常要跟上需求的1或2或以上的書籍，每年，因為你仍然不會靠銷售的1本書，即使它沒有確定。
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.我要說的是，這可能是最後的“專業”的作者完全，但這一並不意味著偉大的文學作品會不會仍在生產。 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.大多數作者都沒有這樣做是為了錢，因為它是如此，在出現的電子出版，現在他們將能夠達到這一廣大觀眾（潛在的，至少），而不必求助於大出版商。
Leave a Comment發表評論