讨论: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

未翻译内容[编辑]

未翻译内容如下：--Flame 欢迎泡茶 2012年9月23日 (日) 00:28 (UTC)[回复]

反著作权的论点[编辑]

经济观[编辑]

著作权削弱创意的诱因[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

有些论者认为，著作权是无效的，因为不像实体财产，智慧财产并不具有稀少性，其乃基于国家所制定的法律所创造出来的虚构事物。对于著作物进行盗版 ，不像一般的窃盗，并不会使被害人丧失原有物品（著作权），只是在部份国家，由于著作权法的实施而构成侵权行为而已[2]。

历史性研究[编辑]

即便对于大多数的著作人有利，但著作权法是否真的具有经济上的助益，目前仍然不是很明确。因此，Höffner 便针对19世纪前半期的英国与德国进行比较，以了解著作权法对于著作人和著作物发行的经济上影响。当时德国类似的法律尚未被建构，但是他发现，德国却有较多的书籍被印刷与阅读，且整体而言，德国的作者也赚了比较多钱[3]。

资讯科技相关论点[编辑]

Web 2.0[编辑]

Piratbyrån的创办人之一， Rasmus Fleischer表示，著作权法仅看似不能在网路上复制，因此而显得过时。他认为，网际网路，特别是Web 2.0，已经造成“复制”这个概念本身处于一个不明确的状态。为了要控制Web 2.0，21世纪的著作权法更加关注于对于整体科技的刑法化，造成近来对于各种搜寻引擎的攻讦，仅只是因为他们提供的连结可能已经有著作权。Fleischer并且指出Google，尽管大部分没有争议，便是运作在著作权的灰色地带。（譬如以商业模式经营的Google Books便公开展示了许多具有著作权的书籍，另外也展示无著作权的书籍作为其商业计画的一部分，这一部份透过广告为其带来收益。）但相反地，有论者指出，Google Books将这些有著作权的书籍很大一部份遮掩住，而将带来购买的动机，并且成为著作权人的合法支助。

Fleischer的核心论点为，著作权对于网际网路而言是过时的，实行著作权所需花费的成本并不合理，相反地，商业经营模式需要去适应黑暗网路（darknet）存在的现实[4]。

文化观点[编辑]

知识自由[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]

著作人与创意[编辑]

另类法律论坛（Alternative Law Forum）的创办人梁日明认为，现在的著作权制度乃植基于被认为是清楚而毫无疑问，但却过于狭隘的“著作人”之定义而生。梁日明观察到，“著作人”这个概念被认为可以适用在任何文化与时空环境之中。然而，梁日明认为，著作人被认为是一个独特而卓越的精神原创者，是欧洲于工业革命以后，为了要使著作人的人格在大量制造的商品中区隔出来而建构的概念。因此，著作乃系由原创的“著作人”所创造，并且与当时流行的财产权理论相结合[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权运动中的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 (报告软件缺陷) 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权运动中的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 (报告软件缺陷) 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”