在阿德里安·约翰斯这本宝贵的“盗版”一书中，他指出知识产权的系列战斗具有侵蚀隐私权的大趋势。作为芝加哥大学的历史学教授，约翰斯说，现在关于知识产权盗版的各种争论——从谷歌试图建立一个统一的数字图书馆的努力，到各种专利应有多大威力的争论——都是从更久远时代的版权战争中嫡传继承而来。
基本信息编辑本段回目录
《盗版：知识产权之战——从古登堡计划到比尔·盖茨》
Adrian Johns's "Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars From Gutenberg to Gates"
Sunday, July 4, 2010 Univ. of Chicago. 626 pp. $35
Hardcover: 640 pages
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (January 15, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0226401189
ISBN-13: 978-0226401188
内容简介编辑本段回目录
The recording industry's panic over illegal downloads is nothing new; a century ago, London publishers faced a similar crisis when pirate editions of sheet music were widely available at significantly less cost. Similarly, the debate over pharmaceutical patents echoes an 18th-century dispute over the origins of Epsom salt. These are just two of the historical examples that Johns (The Nature of the Book) draws upon as he traces the tensions between authorized and unauthorized producers and distributors of books, music, and other intellectual property in British and American culture from the 17th century to the present. Johns's history is liveliest when it is rooted in the personal—the 19th-century renegade bibliographer Samuel Egerton Brydges, for example, or the jazz and opera lovers who created a thriving network of bootleg recordings in the 1950s—but the shifting theoretical arguments about copyright and authorial property are presented in a cogent and accessible manner. Johns's research stands as an important reminder that today's intellectual property crises are not unprecedented, and offers a survey of potential approaches to a solution. 40 b&w illus. (Feb.)
作者简介编辑本段回目录
阿德里安·约翰斯（Adrian Johns）。Adrian Johns is professor of history and chair of the Committee on Conceptual and Historical Studies at the University of Chicago. He is the author of The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making, also published by the University of Chicago Press.
简评编辑本段回目录
书评：知识产权之战编辑本段回目录
书评：阿德里安·约翰斯的新书
“盗版：知识产权之战——从古登堡计划到比尔·盖茨”
Adrian Johns's "Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars From Gutenberg to Gates"
Sunday, July 4, 2010 Univ. of Chicago. 626 pp. $35
In 2008, as part of a copyright suit, a federal judge ordered Google, which owns YouTube, to turn over to Viacom the viewing records of every video watched on YouTube, including the login names and computer addresses of every viewer. One corporation's efforts to enforce intellectual property rights turned out to pose a dramatic threat to the privacy of tens of millions of users. (Last month, the court summarily ruled in favor of YouTube against Viacom.) And not long ago, Congress created a "copyright czar" charged with mounting a "war on piracy." That war now threatens to turn government lawyers into snoops and enforcers on behalf of corporate interests.
2008年，作为版权官司的一部分，联邦法庭命令YouTube的拥有者谷歌公司，向原告Viacom公司转交YouTube网站视频的观看数据，包括每一位访问者的登录名和计算机地址。结果一个公司加强知识产权的努力，摇身一变，反而对数千万用户的隐私权造成了巨大威胁。（还好，上个月法庭的裁决总体来说还是有利于YouTube）而不久之前，美国国会创造出了一个“产权沙皇”，主持发起一场“反盗版战争”。这场战争现在正威胁要把政府的律师们变成代表公司利益的偷窥者和监视者。
In his invaluable book "Piracy," Adrian Jones argues that the tendency of intellectual property battles to undermine privacy is not new. On the contrary, Johns, a history professor at the University of Chicago, argues that ever since the medieval and Enlightenment eras, corporations have tried to defend their economic interests by searching for intellectual piracy in the private sphere of people's homes. He says that all of our current debates about intellectual piracy -- from Google's efforts to create a universal digital library to the fight over how vigorous patents should be -- have antecedents in the copyright wars of earlier eras.
在阿德里安·约翰斯这本宝贵的“盗版”一书中，他指出知识产权的系列战斗具有侵蚀隐私权的大趋势，此事早已不新鲜。相反，作为芝加哥大学的历史学教授，约翰斯认为自从中世纪以及启蒙时代以来，各种公司就早已尝试通过对人民家庭私有领域的搜查，来保护他们自己的经济利益。他说，现在关于知识产权盗版的各种争论——从谷歌试图建立一个统一的数字图书馆的努力，到各种专利应有多大威力的争论——都是从更久远时代的版权战争中嫡传继承而来。
After the first printing press arrived in England around 1471, intellectual property rights in books were enforced in two ways -- through monopolies granted by the crown or through guild registration with a Company of Stationers charged with punishing violators who reprinted books without permission. From the beginning there was a strong geographical dimension to printing: Legitimate, properly registered books were supposed to be published in respectable printing houses or homes, while reprinted, pirate copies, such as seditious books criticizing the crown, were said to be published by "private" presses -- in "holes" or "corners" hidden from respectable society. The right to search a printing house was crucially important to enforcing intellectual property rights, but constables of the crown didn't enjoy that privilege. Instead, self-policing by members of the guild ensured against invasive searches: A guild member who authorized the search of a fellow printer's house was likely to be investigated himself by the same printer in return.
1471年左右，在第一台印刷机抵达英格兰之后，书籍的知识产权可以通过两种方式得以巩固——要么通过国王批准的垄断专营权，或者是通过印刷公司注册的行会，它主管对未经许可盗印书籍的违法者进行惩罚。从一开始，印刷就具有很强的地理维度因素：合法的，正当注册的书籍被认为应该在受人尊敬的印刷所或者家庭付印，而那些盗印、盗版的书，比如批评国王的煽动性书籍，据说都是由“私营企业”印刷的——也就是在远离正派社会，阴暗躲藏的“地洞”或者“角落”之类的地方。对于加强知识产权来说，搜查印刷所的权力是至关重要的，但是国王的巡查官对此特权毫无兴趣。而实际上，行会成员的自我执法也同样反对侵略性的搜查：原因很简单，对一个授权行会去搜查印刷同行房屋的行会成员来说，很可能他自己就会被同一个印刷商提出报复，而成为下一个被搜查者。
In the late 18th century, London booksellers -- threatened by Scottish and Irish reprinters who pirated their books -- tried to extend this system of self-policing throughout the United Kingdom. They asserted a kind of perpetual literary property, rooted in the customs of the trade and policed by their own corps of roving agents. This gambit dramatically backfired when challenged by the "pirate in chief," a Scottish reprinter named Alexander Donaldson, who claimed that the asserted right of private agents to snoop in private homes threatened the public sphere. In 1774, in the most important copyright case in Anglo-American legal history, the British House of Lords sided with Donaldson and rejected the idea of a perpetual copyright. The pirates had successfully cast themselves as defenders of free speech, privacy and the public domain.
到了18世纪后期，伦敦的图书销售商——因为面临着苏格兰和爱尔兰盗印者的威胁——尝试把这个自我执法体系推广到联合王国全境。他们坚决主张一种永久性的文化产权，以贸易关卡为根基，并且有他们自己的游动侦探来执法。可是当“盗版局长”，一个名叫亚历山大·唐纳森的苏格兰盗印商，跳出来挑战的时候，这个开局遭到了戏剧性的猛烈反击，他宣布正版商人主张用私人侦探偷窥私人家庭的那种特权，威胁着公共领域。1774年，英美法系历史上最重要的版权案例中，英国贵族院附议了唐纳森的主张，驳回了永久版权的主意。这次盗版者成功地把他们自己铸造成了言论自由、个人隐私和公共领域的捍卫者。
Johns shows how a similar pattern recurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1902, music pirates took advantage of a revolutionary process that allowed for the exact copying of sheet music, which they sold far more cheaply than the original publishers did. The sheet music companies successfully lobbied the government for a dramatic strengthening of copyright law -- one that many people saw as a threat to civil liberties. It allowed the police, on the request of a piracy victim, to seize illicit sheet music without first getting a warrant. The law didn't allow forced entry into houses, since it assumed that pirated sheet music was sold on the streets, but after a few high-profile raids, the pirates began to portray themselves, in court and in the newspapers, as "heroic defenders of domestic privacy." And when the British government, in an effort to combat radio piracy in the 1920s, said that the right to enter homes was the key to maintaining the state's "control of the ether," critics responded that abolishing the radio would be better than forfeiting liberty.
约翰斯向我们展示了类似的图景如何在十九世纪和二十世纪一再重演。在1902年，乐谱盗版者通过一种革命性工艺，利用乐谱的额外拷贝盈利，而盗印乐谱的售价则远低于正本印刷商。乐谱公司成功地游说了政府，对版权法进行了高度强化——其结果到了多数人都把它看成对公众自由严重威胁的程度。该法允许警察应盗版受害者的要求，当场收缴非法乐谱，而不需要事先请求法庭核准。由于该法估计盗版乐谱都是在大街上销售的，所以它不允许强行进入民宅。然而，经过几次高姿态的突击搜查之后，盗版者开始通过法庭和报纸，把他们自己化妆成“家庭隐私的英雄捍卫者”。同样，到了1920年代，当英国政府努力和电台盗版节目斗争的时候，政府宣布入户搜查的权力是维护国家“控制以太空间”的关键，结果批评者反驳说，与其丧失自由，还不如彻底禁用无线电更好。
In the course of describing these intellectual and economic battles, Jones includes memorable stories of a variety of Pirate Kings, such as Matthew Carey, the 19th-century American pirate and economic nationalist who campaigned for the free reprinting of European pamphlets. He was so single-minded that his son denounced him for allowing his cause to destroy his family, leading Carey to accuse his son of "filial treason" and challenge him to a duel.
在对这些知识和经济领域的战斗描述中，约翰斯的作品囊括了众多盗版之王的精彩故事，比如马修·卡利，十九世纪美国盗版和经济方面的民族主义者，他发起了对欧洲各种小册子的盗印运动。此人是如此真心实意地拥护盗版，以至于他儿子公开谴责他因此而毁了家庭。而这又导致卡利起诉他儿子“背叛孝道”，并且要和他决斗。
Johns ends with an insightful chapter describing how the old battles between property, piracy and privacy are being replayed today. The debate over Google's book-scanning project recalls Enlightenment-era attempts to create a universal library through mandatory book depository laws, debates over pharmaceutical patenting were anticipated in the Victorian era, and the file-sharers of today resemble the home-tapers of the 1960s.
在最后富有洞见的一章里，约翰斯描述了在产权、盗版和隐私之间种种由来已久的斗争，这些斗争今天又在重新上演。围绕谷歌图书扫描计划的争议，让我们回想起启蒙时代通过强制图书捐赠制的法律，建立统一图书馆的尝试；而有关药品专利的争论，早已在维多利亚时代进行过预演；至于今天的文件共享者们，则与1960年代家庭录像带共享者如出一辙。
Now that digital rights management technology has the capacity to invade the privacy of the home far more dramatically than the constables of old, and now that the U.S. government has alarmingly committed its enforcement powers to uphold corporate property rights in ways that are even more invasive to domestic privacy, Johns suggests rethinking the distinctions that have defined the intellectual property wars for centuries. He criticizes as obsolete the distinction between literary creativity, which is regulated by copyright, and mechanical creativity, which is regulated by patents. A modern taxonomy, Johns suggests, might focus on the distinction between digital and analog copies or -- even more radically -- recognize multiple categories of material regulated by different legal regimes: "genetic, digital, algorithmic, inscribed, and more." Although "more complex in theory," this system might be simpler to use in practice, because it would more closely reflect the "contours of creative life." Since "the history of piracy is the history of modernity," Johns concludes in this challenging, richly detailed and provocative book, the choices we make about how to balance property, creativity and privacy will define "the contours of creative life" for the 21st century.
今天，数字版权管理技术已经对于家庭隐私的侵略能力，与旧时代的巡查官相比，强大到了不可思议的程度，而今天的美国政府的做法也更加需要警惕，它竟然同意用对家庭隐私权的侵犯更加严重的种种方式，来增强政府对公司产权的支持力度。约翰斯建议我们重新思考几个世纪来以来知识产权战争的决定性特点。他批评说，对文化创造性和机械创造性的区别，已经被漠视和荒废了。前者应由版权来规范，而后者由专利来规范。约翰斯建议说，一个现代化的分类法，也许应该关注数字和模拟拷贝之间的特殊本质差异——甚至更根本、更彻底地来说——比如认识到这些材料具有多种分类，而且由不同的法律范畴来规范：“有基因的，有数字的，有演算的，有刻写的，不一而足”。尽管“理论上来说更加复杂”，但是这个体系实际应用中可能更加简单，因为它更接近于对“创造性生活轮廓”的反映。既然“盗版的历史就是现代化的历史”，约翰斯通过这本颇具挑战、细节丰富、并且激动人心的书籍，做出了结论，我们今天针对如何平衡产权、创造性和盗版之间关系的选择，将决定二十一世纪“创造性生活的轮廓”。
Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, heads the Project on Technology and the Constitution at the Brookings Institution.
杰弗里·罗森，乔治·华盛顿大学法律教授
