關注社會:反盜版,對錯之爭
導讀：在未經版權所有人同意或授權的情況下，對其擁有著作權的作品、出版物等進行復制、再分發的行爲，即可認定爲盜版。在絕大多數國家和地區，此行爲被定義爲侵犯知識產權的違法行爲，甚至構成犯罪，會受到所在國家的處罰。
An American anti-piracy bill tries to stem the global theft of intellectual property.
美國議會提出反盜版議案，打擊跨國知識產權侵權。
ILLEGAL copying and sharing of copyrighted material is hard enough to stop within a country. But when the internet takes traffic across borders it is almost unmanageable. American-owned intellectual property, say, may be uploaded in one country and downloaded in a second, via a website whose computers are in a third, operated by anonymous enthusiasts (or criminals) from goodness-knows-where. So whom do you sue, and in which courts? The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), now before America's Congress, is the latest of many recent attempts to defend property rights on the internet.
在國內，打擊盜版已是十分困難；而互聯網時代的到來，使得信息的交流跨越國界，打擊盜版幾乎成爲不可能任務。舉個例子，版權在美國的作品，從一個國家上傳到網上，通過另一個國家網站，又下載到第三個國家的電腦中，而背後的操作的，是匿名下載狂熱愛好者（或是侵權罪犯），可能來自世界上任何地方。去起訴誰，又在哪起訴？這確實成了難題。美國近來爲打擊互聯網產權侵權採取了一系列措施，最近的一項就是《禁止網絡盜版法案》（SOPA），正在接受議會審查。
The bill aims to cut off Americans' access to foreign pirate websites by squeezing intermediaries. Rights-holders, such as Hollywood film studios, will be able to request that a credit-card firm or advertising network stop doing business with a foreign site; or ask a search engine to take down links to the site; or ask an internet-service provider to block the site's domain name, making it harder to reach. The intermediary then has just five days to comply or rebut the complaint; after that the rights-holder can go to court.
該議案旨在通過限制中介媒介，阻止美國訪問外國盜版網站的接入。好萊塢的電影工作室等版權內容持有者將有權要求信用卡公司和廣告發佈網站終止與侵權外國網站的業務往來；要求搜索引撤銷指向其站點的鏈接；或要求網絡服務提供商封鎖該站點域名，阻止該網站的接入。被控中介媒介有5天時間整改或提出抗辯，逾期版權內容持有者可訴諸法庭。
This would rope intermediaries into law enforcement to an unprecedented degree, and give rights-holders exceptional power. Critics of the bill say that takedown requests and court orders will swamp smaller firms and start-ups. They say that blocking entire websites via their domain name smacks of censorship, and that determined downloaders will anyway find the block easy to bypass.
這項議案，對中介媒介的限制是前所未有的，它賦予了版權內容持有者極大的力量。不過，批評者指出，鏈接撤銷和法庭命令會讓小型企業、新興企業疲於應付，不利於其成長。通過域名封鎖整個網絡更有信息審查之嫌。而且，這種封鎖對真正想要下載的人不會起作用，他們很輕易就能繞過。
Two mighty coalitions have formed around SOPA. Supporting the bill are not only film studios and music labels, but also drug firms and other manufacturers. Though SOPA itself does not affect them, they have a big interest in fighting any kind of intellectual-property infringement. On the other side are internet companies, technology investors and digital activists, who share an interest in disrupting business models and a dislike for anything that smacks of old-fashioned regulation.
圍繞是否通過SOPA，形成了兩個強有力的陣營。支持者不僅有電影工作室、唱片公司，還有製藥企業等製造商，雖然SOPA對後者沒有直接影響，但只要是對抗知識產權侵權，他們都很關心。反對者陣營包括網絡公司、科技投資者和數碼活動者，他們志在革新商業模式，反對一切過時的商業規則。
Online narcotics
網絡毒品
Constantly changing technology makes data on piracy unreliable. Monitors struggle to distinguish the effect of deterrence from the rise of easy, cheap alternatives to piratical downloading, such as legal online music services. Nor do they know how much piracy has cut legal sales of music and films, and how much blame should go to shifting consumer tastes. But the fight against intellectual-property theft is waged hard. It resembles a bit the fight against illegal drugs: clamp down in one place, and the trade sprouts elsewhere.
科技發展速度迅猛，使收集到的知識產權侵權數據變得並不準確。不知道是盜版行爲，還是如授權網絡音樂下載等簡單廉價的代替產品，對音樂和電影等銷售威脅更大；也不清楚是盜版行爲，還是潮流消費對其銷售影響更多。唯一明確的是，人們正在進行一場艱難的反知識產權侵權鬥爭。與禁毒鬥爭有些類似的，盜版取締了一處，又會在其它地方迅速興起。
The Social Science Research Council, an American non-profit body, found in a study this year "little evidence—and indeed few claims—that enforcement efforts to date have had any impact whatsoever on the overall supply [of pirated media]."
社會科學研究協會（SSRC）,一個美國的非政府組織，在今年的調查中指出，“幾乎沒什麼證據證明——事實上只有極少數的組織聲稱——迄今爲止做出的司法努力，對全國的盜版情況有絲毫積極的影響。
With great effort, courts have closed or hampered some big "peer-to-peer" file-sharing sites (these allow users to swap files without going via a central computer). But others spring up in their place. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) estimated that music-sharing doubled between 2006 and 2008.
法院做出了巨大的努力關閉、限制了一些提供“P2P（點對點）”文件分享的大型網站（通過這些網站用戶可以不經過中央電腦交換數據），但是類似的網站又隨即出現。據國際唱片業協會（IFPI）調查顯示，2006年至2008年，音樂共享數量翻了一番。
Growing even faster, though, are cyber-lockers such as RapidShare. These let people share links to files they have uploaded to the "cloud", the huge arrays of easily accessible servers that host all manner of data. A few such cyber-lockers (largely out of the direct reach of American justice) now have more visitors than the top peer-to-peer sites. Illegal streaming services and piracy via mobile devices, the IFPI says, are the next big threat.
相比之下，RapidShare等網絡硬盤發展更加迅速。通過網絡硬盤，用戶可以將自己的文件資料上傳到“雲”，並在網上發佈指向文件的鏈接。“雲”，是巨大的方便接入的服務器組，可以存儲各種各樣的資源。如今，一些網絡硬盤（所在地區美國司法機構鞭長莫及）的訪問量已經超過了最大的P2P站點。而接下來威脅最大的，據IFPI稱，是非法流媒體服務和基於移動設備的盜版。
In the eyes of rights-holders, the law seems shamefully lax. In 1998 America adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which criminalised many of the methods used to copy digital content, but also established "safe harbours", explicitly protecting intermediaries such as search engines and social networks from prosecution for their users' actions. Several other rich countries have similar laws. The pirates just moved their illegal activity to looser jurisdictions, such as Sweden—while still benefiting from American-based search engines and payment systems. Now the rights-holders see intermediaries as the only point where they can choke the illegal trade. "This is the last stand—the guys who have the pipes," says Peter Mensch of Q Prime, which represents bands such as Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
在版權內容持有者看來，法律對版權保護不力，是件十分可恥的事。1998年，美國實施了數字千年版權法案，將許多複製數碼內容方式定罪，但同時也制定了一些“避風港原則”，明確規定中介媒介如搜索引擎和社交網絡等不因其用戶的行爲遭到起訴。若干其他富裕國家也有類似的法律。盜版者只要把其非法活動移至司法寬鬆的國家，就可繼續使用總部在美國的搜索引擎和支付系統。所以，想要扼殺這類非法交易，中介媒介就成爲咽喉所在。“這些中介媒介，這些管道，是他們最後的抵抗之地。”Q?普萊姆（Q Prime）的彼得?門施（Peter Mensch）如是說。Q?普萊姆是一家樂隊代理機構，金屬樂隊、紅辣椒樂隊等都是它的客戶。
Intermediaries are under fire on other fronts too, notes Viktor Mayer-Sch?nberger of the Oxford Internet Institute. Google, for instance, faces a number of lawsuits in Europe for providing links to material that breaches privacy laws. A handful of European and Asian countries have adopted or proposed "graduatedresponse" laws. These oblige internet-service providers to shut off service from users suspected of downloading illegal files (they get two warnings first).
維克托·邁爾·舍恩伯格(Viktor Mayer-Sch?nberger)，任職於牛津互聯網研究所，指出在其他領域，中介媒介也飽受爭議。比如Google，在歐洲就因爲提供的鏈接違反相關隱私法律，招致了許多官司。在歐洲和亞洲，少數幾個國家已經施行或準備施行一種“漸進的”法令，要求網絡服務提供商終止向涉嫌非法下載的用戶提供服務（最初兩次下載用戶會受到警告）。
This approach is working, argues Frances Moore of the IFPI. In South Korea, one of the first places to adopt such a law, most people stop downloading files after the first warning and most of the rest stop after the second, she says. In Spain, which passed an anti-piracy law only in March, music sales have dropped faster than the global average. In 2010 Nielsen, a market-research firm, estimated that 45% of Spanish internet users visited illegal music-distribution services, against 23% in the top five European markets.
來自IFPI的弗朗西斯·穆爾（Frances Moore）稱，以上這些措施還是起到了作用。她說，在南非，第一批實施此法令的國家，大多數人首次受到警告後就會停止下載，其餘的人也大都在第二次警告後停止。在西班牙，三月份剛剛通過反盜版法，音樂銷售量已銳減，其減速高於世界平均水平。而一市場調查公司，尼爾森，2010年的報告指出：西班牙45%網民曾非法下載過音樂，而前在五大歐洲市場只有23%。
This deterrent may fade over time, though. Nailing offenders can be tricky, since people often share an internet connection and it is hard to prove which of them used it to download files illegally. The Recording Industry Association of America sued thousands of people in 2003-08 for file sharing. After an initial fall, piracy soon started rising again.
不過，這些措施也會漸漸失去威力。非法下載的用戶不屈不撓，也很狡猾。分享鏈接在網絡用戶中很常見，很難確定哪個用戶使用了非法鏈接。2003年8月，數千人因爲非法共享音樂文件被美國唱片協會訴上法庭。盜版的勢頭在一輪降溫後，迅速回升。
Compared with other countries' anti-piracy laws, SOPA is indeed draconian. But the real row is about how content should be distributed and paid for. The bill's supporters want this to change as slowly as possible, so they have time to adapt. Opponents want to see more rapid changes in business models to speed up overdue innovation: cheaper pricing in poor countries, more use of on-demand digital services, less exclusivity in distribution, and ultimately, less reliance on selling albums and DVDs. Yet self-interest is at work on both sides: many of the bill's critics are trying to create just these kinds of business.
與國外反盜版法相比，SOPA嚴厲非常。不過，與打擊盜版相比，問題的癥結卻在於版權內容如何發佈和收費。SOPA的倡導者想讓轉變的腳步儘量放緩，有更多的時間去適應；而反對者希望商業模式加速轉型，促進已滯後的產業創新：降低在貧困國家的服務價格，推廣按需數字服務，減低發佈獨有性，最終，減弱行業對唱片和DVD銷售模式的依賴。不過，無論支持者還是反對者都有私心：批評該議案的很多人，也正在努力創建上述這些商業模式。
Neither piracy laws nor newfangled ideas offer creative types a reliable path to prosperity. Services that provide legal music over the internet pay out little in royalties. Only the biggest bands really do well out of touring—and to become big they need to sell albums, says Mr Mensch. No law can do much about that.
無論是反盜版法還是這些新奇的想法，都不能保障產業模式的創新有可靠地收入。通過網絡提供的授權音樂下載，版稅收入甚微。而巡迴演出，門施說，只有最受歡迎的樂隊纔有可觀的收入——可是樂隊要受歡迎，就得出唱片。對此法律就愛莫能助了。
