Talk:对著作权的争议

页面内容不支持其他语言。
维基百科，自由的百科全书
（重定向自Talk:反著作權運動）

未翻譯內容[编辑]

未翻譯內容如下：--Flame 歡迎泡茶 2012年9月23日 (日) 00:28 (UTC)[回复]

反著作權的論點[编辑]

經濟觀[编辑]

著作權削弱創意的誘因[编辑]

"The evolution of copyright from an occasional grant of royal privilege to a formal and eventually widespread system of law should in principle have enhanced composers' income from publication. The evidence from our quantitative comparison of honoraria received by Beethoven, with no copyright law in his territory, and Robert Schumann, benefiting from nearly universal European copyright, provides at best questionable support for the hypothesis that copyright fundamentally changed composers' fortunes. From the qualitative evidence on Giuseppe Verdi, who was the first important composer to experience the new Italian copyright regime and devise strategies to derive maximum advantage, it is clear that copyright could make a substantial difference. In the case of Verdi, greater remuneration through full exploitation of the copyright system led perceptibly to a lessening of composing effort." [1]

非稀少性[编辑]

参见：Artificial scarcity

有些論者認為，著作權是無效的，因為不像實體財產，智慧財產並不具有稀少性，其乃基於國家所制定的法律所創造出來的虛構事物。對於著作物進行盜版 ，不像一般的竊盜，並不會使被害人喪失原有物品（著作權），只是在部份國家，由於著作權法的實施而構成侵權行為而已[2]。

歷史性研究[编辑]

即便對於大多數的著作人有利，但著作權法是否真的具有經濟上的助益，目前仍然不是很明確。因此，Höffner 便針對19世紀前半期的英國與德國進行比較，以瞭解著作權法對於著作人和著作物發行的經濟上影響。當時德國類似的法律尚未被建構，但是他發現，德國卻有較多的書籍被印刷與閱讀，且整體而言，德國的作者也賺了比較多錢[3]。

資訊科技相關論點[编辑]

Web 2.0[编辑]

Piratbyrån的創辦人之一， Rasmus Fleischer表示，著作權法僅看似不能在網路上複製，因此而顯得過時。他認為，網際網路，特別是Web 2.0，已經造成「複製」這個概念本身處於一個不明確的狀態。為了要控制Web 2.0，21世紀的著作權法更加關注於對於整體科技的刑法化，造成近來對於各種搜尋引擎的攻訐，僅只是因為他們提供的連結可能已經有著作權。Fleischer並且指出Google，儘管大部分沒有爭議，便是運作在著作權的灰色地帶。（譬如以商業模式經營的Google Books便公開展示了許多具有著作權的書籍，另外也展示無著作權的書籍作為其商業計畫的一部分，這一部份透過廣告為其帶來收益。）但相反地，有論者指出，Google Books將這些有著作權的書籍很大一部份遮掩住，而將帶來購買的動機，並且成為著作權人的合法支助。

Fleischer的核心論點為，著作權對於網際網路而言是過時的，實行著作權所需花費的成本並不合理，相反地，商業經營模式需要去適應黑暗網路（darknet）存在的現實[4]。

文化觀點[编辑]

知識自由[编辑]

Groups such as Hipatia advance anti-copyright arguments in the name of "freedom of knowledge" and argue that knowledge should be "shared in solidarity". Such groups may perceive "freedom of knowledge" as a right, and/or as fundamental in realising the right to education, which is an internationally recognised human right, as well as the right to a free culture and the right to free communication. They argue that current copyright law hinders the realisation of these rights in today's knowledge societies relying on new technological means of communication.[5]

Such groups see copyright law as preventing or slowing human progress. They argue that the current copyright system needs to be brought into line with reality and the needs of society. Hipatia argues that this would "provide the ethical principles which allow the individual to spread his/her knowledge, to help him/herself, to help his/her community and the whole world, with the aim of making society ever more free, more equal, more sustainable, and with greater solidarity."[5]

著作人與創意[编辑]

另類法律論壇（Alternative Law Forum）的創辦人梁日明認為，現在的著作權制度乃植基於被認為是清楚而毫無疑問，但卻過於狹隘的「著作人」之定義而生。梁日明觀察到，「著作人」這個概念被認為可以適用在任何文化與時空環境之中。然而，梁日明認為，著作人被認為是一個獨特而卓越的精神原創者，是歐洲於工業革命以後，為了要使著作人的人格在大量製造的商品中區隔出來而建構的概念。因此，著作乃係由原創的「著作人」所創造，並且與當時流行的財產權理論相結合[6]。

Liang argues that the concept of "author" is tied to the notion of copyright and emerged to define a new social relationship - the way society perceives the ownership of knowledge. The concept of "author" thus naturalised a particular process of knowledge production where the emphasis on individual contribution and individual ownership takes precedence over the concept of "community knowledge".[6] Relying on the concept of the author, copyright is based on the assumption that without an intellectual property rights regime, authors would have no incentive to further create, and that artists cannot produce new works without an economic incentive. Liang challenges this logic, arguing that "many authors who have little hope of ever finding a market for their publications, and whose copyright is, as a result, virtually worthless, have in the past, and even in the present, continued to write."[6] Liang points out that people produce works purely for personal satisfaction, or even for respect and recognition from peers. Liang argues that the 19th Century saw the prolific authorship of literary works in the absence of meaningful copyright that benefited the author. In fact, Liang argues, copyright protection usually benefited the publisher, and rarely the author.[6]

外部链接已修改[编辑]

各位维基人：

我刚刚修改了反著作權運動中的7个外部链接，请大家仔细检查我的编辑。如果您有疑问，或者需要让机器人忽略某个链接甚至整个页面，请访问这个简单的FAQ获取更多信息。我进行了以下修改：

有关机器人修正错误的详情请参阅FAQ。

祝编安。—InternetArchiveBot (報告軟件缺陷) 2017年8月9日 (三) 16:18 (UTC)[回复]

外部链接已修改[编辑]

各位维基人：

我刚刚修改了反著作權運動中的2个外部链接，请大家仔细检查我的编辑。如果您有疑问，或者需要让机器人忽略某个链接甚至整个页面，请访问这个简单的FAQ获取更多信息。我进行了以下修改：

有关机器人修正错误的详情请参阅FAQ。

祝编安。—InternetArchiveBot (報告軟件缺陷) 2017年9月14日 (四) 21:10 (UTC)[回复]

  1. ^ Scherer, F.M., Quarter Notes and Bank Notes. The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Princeton University Press, 2004年 
  2. ^ Kinsella, Stephan Against Intellectual Property (2008) Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  3. ^ Eckhard Höffner. Copyright and structure of authors’ earnings (PDF). [2012年2月11日]. 
  4. ^ Fleischer, Rasmus. The Future of Copyright. CATO Unbound. 2008年.  已忽略未知参数|month=（建议使用|date=） (帮助)
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 Second Manifesto. Hipatia. [2008年07月25日]. 
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Liang, Lawrence. Copyright/Copyleft: Myths About Copyright. Infochangeindia.org. 2005年.  已忽略未知参数|month=（建议使用|date=） (帮助)
取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:对著作权的争议&oldid=54137951”