想像一個著作權極簡主義的世界 文/iThome (記者) 2007-01-11
「著作權極簡主義」乃是有感於過去許多創作或創意，都受到著作權權利範疇的不斷擴展、威脅而發的，換言之，這是一種抵抗著作權膨脹趨勢的基本理念。
劉靜怡／台灣大學國家發展研究所法律組專任副教授，美國芝加哥大學法學博士、哈佛大學法學碩士
美國時代雜誌（Time Magazine）最近選出的2006年風雲人物是：「你」（You）。乍聽之下雖然新鮮突兀，但細想之下卻一點也不令人驚訝：只要是上過YouTube、Myspace，或是維基百科的網路使用者，就可以成為時代雜誌心目中的風雲人物，原因無他，因為今年的確是耶魯大學法學院教授Yochai Benkler在《The Wealth of Networks：How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom》（Yale University Press，2006，本書在網路上提供全書pdf檔免費下載）一書中所描繪的「共同生產」（peer production or social production）年度，你─同時身兼網路使用者和創作者的你─正是其中挑大樑的主角。然而，「你」如果要繼續扮演資訊社會的要角，恐怕必須仰賴「著作權極簡主義」（copyright minimalism）的發揚光大，才有進一步的前景可言。
「著作權極簡主義」乃是有感於過去許多創作或創意，都受到著作權權利範疇的不斷擴展、威脅而發的，換言之，這是一種抵抗著作權膨脹趨勢的基本理念。例如：杜克大學法學院的James Boyle教授和Lawrence Lessig教授便常以紀錄片的拍攝為例，來說明著作權膨脹為創作者帶來的困擾：非商業性紀錄片創作者，往往可能只是因為拍攝紐約街景而順勢將許多招牌和看板帶入鏡頭當中，便必須耗費相當的時間、人力和金錢成本，向這些招牌和看板所屬的公司取得使用授權。
既然著作權制度近年來的發展重點，是著重在如何遏止各種盜版行為所引發的商業損失問題繼續惡化下去，那麼，著作權不分青紅皂白地擴張，到底會引發什麼效應？尤其對於網路上的創作活動會造成何種影響，是不是也該成為我們停下腳步嚴肅思考的問題？否則，「你」做為時代雜誌風雲人物的現象，在著作權制度高度擁護者的逼迫下，早晚勢必會成為曇花一現的歷史陳跡。
從「符號民主」（semiotic democracy）論者心中所想像的理想社會模型來看，每個社會成員都能自由參與意義創造的過程（the process of meaning-making），讓每個社會成員都能協助成為製造符號和文化的「生產者」，不但有利於創作數量的提升，相對於僅僅被動地扮演為文化符號和產品的消費者，這種主動參與意義創造過程的社會生產或共同生產模式，也有助於豐富文化的多元性，這就是「你」這個今年網路風雲現象的核心價值之一，而要鼓勵此種意義創造過程的參與行為，非秉持著作權極簡主義的精神不可。
同時，從主張擴張公共領域（public domain）者的角度來看，這也是應該努力的主要訴求：傳統著作權法對於公共領域的定義，通常都是從著作物生命週期的終點起算，但是，要豐富公共領域，著作權生命週期的終結點，所隱含的卻是一場極為漫長的等待。到底，在不否定著作權的前提下，如何更為有力地容許使用者自由參與創作？我們該如何開拓一個不始於著作權保護終結點的公共領域？讓這個和著作權保護領域並存的公共領域，成為你我的創作資源庫、庇護所和工具箱，恐怕是最為緊要的關鍵。
因為，唯有如此，維基百科、YouTube和Myspace等創作模式，才能夠源源不絕地生存下去，並且進而衍生出更令人驚豔的新興創作模式和創作成果。然而，完全要求這種分散式的創作活動自尋生路，在著作權高度膨脹的現狀下，前景並不樂觀。
尤其台灣的權利人擅於、甚至樂於利用刑事和民事手段「行使」權利，加上政府在著作權帝國的年年催逼下，努力宣導著作權保護的「洗腦教育」，追求符號民主和公共領域理想的「創作天堂」，恐怕還有一段必須跋涉的漫漫長路。這條長路，必須同時著眼於創作空間的拓展在著作權法制中如何落實，除了寄望於修法或法院適用法律心態的調整之外，還必須搭配某些政治經濟條件，甚至，必須為著作權極簡主義的社會運動，提供堅實的論述基礎。
倘若，「你」想立於風雲人物的地位於不墜，那麼，這不僅僅是想像便能成事者，而是一場大家必須一起參與的意義創造過程和論述戰役。
ref link: http://www.ithome.com.tw/itadm/article.php?c=41416
2007年5月11日 星期五
2007年3月8日 星期四
Copyfight: Microsoft Takes Shot at Google
March 7, 2007, 8:00 am
Lobbing the equivalent of a Molotov cocktail into the “copyfight” over intellectual property in the digital age, an associate general counsel at Microsoft, Thomas Rubin, issued a scathing attack on Google in remarks prepared for a conference of the Association of American Publishers.
(The full version of Mr. Rubin’s written comments are published at Microsoft’s Web site, for those who are interested.)
Word of the speech, titled “Searching for Principles: Online Services and Intellectual Property,” began circulating late Tuesday, and as with almost anything else involving these two companies, there was keen interest on the blog circuit.
Mr. Rubin’s primary charge? Google’s riches — particularly as it moves into new media markets, according to Reuters — comes by picking the pockets of book, video and software publishers.
The sentiment will find a receptive audience, given that Google and its ambitious Book Search project has been facing down a lawsuit brought by five book publishers — and organized by the publisher’s association — over just this issue for more than a year.
From the Reuters report this morning on the prepared remarks:
“Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s,” said Mr. Rubin, who oversees copyright and trade-secret law.
Competition is heating up between Google, the world’s dominant search engine, and Microsoft, which more recently entered the Web search market.
Mr. Rubin invokes criticism that Google has faced since its acquisition of YouTube, which has come under fire from media companies for allowing copyright infringement of professionally produced video.
“In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: ‘Trust us — you’re protected. We’ll keep the digital copies secure, we’ll only show snippets, we won’t harm you, we’ll promote you,’” he argues.
In response, Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, was quoted by BBC News as saying that it complied with international copyright laws, and that it worked with more than 10,000 partners to make books searchable online.
“The result has been more exposure and in many cases, more revenue for authors, publishers and producers of content,” Mr. Drummond said.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with Microsoft launching its own Live Search Books service two months ago.
Lobbing the equivalent of a Molotov cocktail into the “copyfight” over intellectual property in the digital age, an associate general counsel at Microsoft, Thomas Rubin, issued a scathing attack on Google in remarks prepared for a conference of the Association of American Publishers.
(The full version of Mr. Rubin’s written comments are published at Microsoft’s Web site, for those who are interested.)
Word of the speech, titled “Searching for Principles: Online Services and Intellectual Property,” began circulating late Tuesday, and as with almost anything else involving these two companies, there was keen interest on the blog circuit.
Mr. Rubin’s primary charge? Google’s riches — particularly as it moves into new media markets, according to Reuters — comes by picking the pockets of book, video and software publishers.
The sentiment will find a receptive audience, given that Google and its ambitious Book Search project has been facing down a lawsuit brought by five book publishers — and organized by the publisher’s association — over just this issue for more than a year.
From the Reuters report this morning on the prepared remarks:
“Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s,” said Mr. Rubin, who oversees copyright and trade-secret law.
“Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop,” Mr.Rubin said. Microsoft, he said, asks the copyright’s owner for permission first.
Competition is heating up between Google, the world’s dominant search engine, and Microsoft, which more recently entered the Web search market.
Mr. Rubin invokes criticism that Google has faced since its acquisition of YouTube, which has come under fire from media companies for allowing copyright infringement of professionally produced video.
“In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: ‘Trust us — you’re protected. We’ll keep the digital copies secure, we’ll only show snippets, we won’t harm you, we’ll promote you,’” he argues.
In response, Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, was quoted by BBC News as saying that it complied with international copyright laws, and that it worked with more than 10,000 partners to make books searchable online.
“The result has been more exposure and in many cases, more revenue for authors, publishers and producers of content,” Mr. Drummond said.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with Microsoft launching its own Live Search Books service two months ago.
source link: The New York Times
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
