[翻譯] 重製保護哪裡有錯？

看板CKEFGISC-1st作者 (Luapcam)時間24年前 (2001/06/25 21:52), 編輯推噓0(0推 0噓 0→)
留言0則, 0人參與, 最新討論串1/1
What's Wrong With Copy Protection 重製保護哪裡有錯？ John Gilmore, 16 February 2001 John Gilmore，2001年二月16日 http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html Translations: 譯文： English, Portuguese, Deutsch, Espanol, Italiano, Frances, Russian, Chinese 英語、葡萄牙語、荷蘭語、西班牙語、義大利語、法語、俄語、繁體中文 中文譯文：macpaul@elixus.org What's wrong? 這有錯嗎？ 　　Ron Rivest asked me, "I think it would be illuminating to hear your views on the differences between the Intel/IBM content-protection proposals and existing practices for content protection in the TV scrambling domain. The devil's advocate position against your position would be: if the customer is willing to buy extra, or special, hardware to allow him to view protected content, what is wrong with that?" 　　Ron Rivest問我：「我覺得在聽到你對於「 Intel與 IBM的內容保護提議」 以及「現行在電視擾頻領域中，對內容保護的做法」，這兩件事情之間差異的看 法之後，有所啟迪。那些刻意唱反調的人可能會提出這樣的反駁：如果顧客們甘 願購買額外的、或更特別的硬體來讓他觀看受保護的內容，這有什麼不對呢？」 　　First, I call it copy protection rather than content protection, because "content" is such a meaningless word. What the technology actually does is to deter copying. Such technologies have a long history in computing, starting with the first microcomputers, minicomputers, and workstations. Except in very small niches, all such systems ultimately failed. Many failed because of active opposition from their buyers, who purchased alternative products that did not restrict copying. 　　首先，我稱這是重製(copy)保護而不是內容( content)保護，因為所謂「內 容」是如此沒有意義的名詞。其實科技真正做的事情是防止拷貝。自從第一台微 電腦開始、到小型電腦、到工作站，這類型的科技在電腦界其實有長遠的歷史。 除了在某些非常小的體系之下，所有這些系統最終都失敗了。許多的失敗是肇因 於主動跟他們的買主作對，那些會選擇購買其他沒有拷貝限制的產品的人。 　　There is nothing wrong with allowing people to optionally choose to buy copy-protection products that they like. What is wrong is when: 　　讓人們有能力去選擇購買他們喜歡的有重製保護的產品是沒有錯的。真正 錯誤的地方在於： Competing products are driven off the market 　　把競爭產品逐出市場 　　What is wrong is when people who would like products that simply record bits, or audio, or video, without any copy protection, can't find any, because they have been driven off the market. By restrictive laws like the Audio Home Recording Act, which killed the DAT market. By "anti-circumvention" laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which EFF is now litigating. By Federal agency actions, like the FCC deciding a month ago that it will be illegal to offer citizens the capability to record HDTV programs, even if the citizens have the legal right to. By private agreements among major companies, such as SDMI and CPRM (that later end up being "submitted" as fait accompli to accredited standards committees, requiring an effort by the affected public to derail them). By private agreements behind the laws and standards, such as the unwritten agreement that DAT and MiniDisc recorders will treat analog inputs as if they contained copyrighted materials which the user has no rights in. (My recording of my brother's wedding is uncopyable, because my MiniDisc decks act as if I and my brother don't own the copyright on it.) 　　真正錯誤的是：當人們喜歡的僅僅是那些單純地紀錄著如位元、聲音、或影 像，而沒有重製保護的產品，但，卻無法找到任何一樣。因為他們早已被對手逐 出市場了。經由這些法律的限制：像Audio Home Recording Act（家用錄音法） ，消滅了數位錄音帶的市場。像現在 EFF（電子邊境基金會）正在提起上訴的「 數位千禧年著作權法案」(Digital Millennium Copyright Act)，其中的〝反規 避條款〞(anti-circumvention)。或者像是由聯邦機構主導， FCC（美國聯邦通 訊協會）在一個月之前決定，讓民眾將HDTV（數位影像電視）節目錄影的能力是 違法的，即使民眾具有合法的權利。或像是經由主要成員的公司們的私下協議， 如SDMI（數位音樂版權保護組織 ）和CPRM（可複製媒體版權保護技術）(Content Protection for Recordable Media)（這稍後結案，〝提交〞給授權制定標 準的委員會也是既成事實，這需要努力地影響公眾造成他們無法如願）。在法律 與標準之外的私下協議，如同未聲明的契約，決定了數位錄音帶與MD錄音機，將 不會允許使用者在非數位的輸入端讀入有版權的內容。（我幫我哥哥的婚禮錄影 是不能拷貝的，因為我的MD認定我和我哥哥沒有帶子的版權） 　　Pioneer New Media Technologies, who builds the recently announced recordable DVD drive for Apple, says "The major consumer applications for recordable DVD will be home movie editing and storage and digital photo storage". They carefully don't say "time-shifting TV programs, or recording streaming Internet videos", because the manufacturers and the distribution companies are in cahoots to make sure that that capability never reaches the market. Even though it's 100% legal to do so, under the Supreme Court's Betamax decision. Streambox built software that let people record RealVideo streams on their hard disks; they were sued by Real under the DMCA, and took it off the market. According to Nomura Securities, DVD Recorder sales will exceed VCR sales in 2004 or 2005, and also exceed DVD Player-only sales by 2005. (http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/1000/10tdb04.htm) So by 2010 or so, few consumers will have access to a recorder that will let them save a copy of a TV program, or time-shift one, or let the kids watch it in the back of the car. Is anyone commenting on that social paradigm shift? Do we think it's good or bad? Do we get any say about it at all? 　　Pioneer New Media Technologies（先鋒新媒體科技）最近宣佈幫蘋果電腦 製造了 DVD燒錄機，他們說：「這些 DVD燒錄機主要的消費性應用將會是家庭影 片編輯與數位相片的儲存。」他們小心的不說：「 time-shifting（預錄）電視 節目或網路串流影片」，因為製造商和通路商的公司會策略聯盟地確定那些功能 絕對不會出現在市場上。即使最高法院判決 (Supreme Court's Betamax decision)，人有百分之百的拷貝權利。Streambox製造了能讓民眾，將 RealVideo 的串流影音節目錄下來存在硬碟上的軟體，卻因為在Real這家公司在 DMCA（數位千禧年著作權法案）的控訴，而被逐出市場。根據Nomura Securities 指出， DVD燒錄機的銷售量將會在2004年到2005年間超過 VCR（錄影帶錄放影機 ），同時也將在2005年超過 DVD播放機。 (http://www.kipinet.com/tdb/1000/10tdb04.htm) 如此在2010年左右，將幾乎 沒有消費者能操作能讓他們備份、或者預錄下電視節目，或讓孩子們在車上後座 欣賞節目的燒錄機。有人對這些典型的社交活動被改變有任何意見嗎？而我們覺 得這些狀況是好是壞呢？又有人告知我們這些事情了嗎？ 　　Instead, consumers will have to pay movie/TV companies over and over for the privilege of time-shifting or space-shifting. Even if they have purchased the movie, and it's stored at home on their own equipment, and they have high bandwidth access to it from wherever they are. This concept is called "pay per use". It can't compete with "You have the right to record a copy of what you have the right to see". These companies can't eliminate that right legally, because it would violate too many of the fundamentals of our society, so they are restricting the technology so you can't exercise that right. In the process they are violating the fundamentals on which a stable and just society is based. But as long as society survives until after they're dead, they don't seem to care about its long-term stability. 　　取而代之的，消費者將必須對這些電影或電視公司付上一筆又一筆的重製 費用。即使他們已經買下了電影，然後把它們存在家裡或他們自己的設備，然 後或許他們有寬頻網路能夠在任何地方欣賞這些影片。這種概念是「每用一次 ，就得付費」。這是不能跟「你有權看（消費），你就有權拷貝一份」來競爭 的。這些公司不能合法的消除你的權利，因為這破壞了太多我們社會的基本層 面，所以他們必須限制這些科技，而使得你不能「運用」這些權利。在這樣的 一個過程中，他們破壞了一個建立在公正和安定基礎上的社會。不過在社會毀 滅之前，他們早都死了，所以他們似乎並不關心社會長期的安定。 　　Companies don't disclose copy-protection restrictions 　　公司不會告知我們有重製保護的限制 　　What is wrong is when companies who make copy-protecting products don't disclose the restrictions to the consumers. Like Apple's recent happy-happy web pages on their new DVD-writing drive, announced this month (http://www.apple.com/idvd/). It's full of glowing info about how you can write DVDs based on your own DV movie recordings, etc. What it quietly neglects to say is that you can't use it to copy or time-shift or record any audio or video copyrighted by major companies. Even if you have the legal right to do so, the technology will prevent you. They don't say that you can't use it to mix and match video tracks from various artists, the way your CD burner will. It doesn't say that you can't copy-protect your own disks that it burns; that's a right the big manufacturers have reserved to themselves. They're not selling you a DVD-Authoring drive, which is for "professional use only". They're selling you a DVD-General drive, which cannot record the key-blocks needed to copy-protect your own recordings, nor can a DVD-General disc be used as a master to press your own DVDs in quantity. These distinctions are not even glossed over; they are simply ignored, not mentioned, invisible until after you buy the product. 　　當業者們製造有重製限制的產品時，卻不告訴消費者會有這些限制，這是 是錯的。像蘋果電腦最近的happy-happy網頁在這個月公告發表他們的新DVD燒 錄機。(http://www.apple.com/idvd/ ) 這上面興高采烈的全都是，你如何用 DVD來製造你自己的數位電影之類的資訊等等。但是被安靜地忽略而沒有說明 的是：你不能用它來拷貝或預錄那些，版權握在大公司手上的影像或聲音。即 使你有法律上的權利去這樣做，科技仍然阻止你。他們不會告訴你：你不能用 這個來把許多創作者的作品加以混音或剪接影像資料，但是那些是你的CD燒錄 機能做到的。他們不會告訴你：你不能對「你自己」製造出來的光碟加以保護 ，而那些卻是大公司為他們自己所保留的。他們不會賣你那些宣稱為：「專家 才能使用的」 DVD著作機，( DVD-Authoring ) 。他們只會把一般不能燒進重 製保護關鍵區段的普通 DVD光碟機賣給你，也不會賣給你可以讓你自行大量生 產 DVD的機種（註：不讓你有生產權）。他們不會解釋這些差異，只是簡單的 被忽略，不被描述，直到你買了這些產品。 　　It isn't just Apple who is misleading the consumer; it's epidemic. Sony portable mini-disc recorders only come with digital input jacks, never digital outputs. Sound checks in -- but only checks out in low-quality analog formats. Intel touts the wonders of their TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Architecture). You have to read between the lines to discover that it exists solely to spy on how you use your PC, so that any random third party across the Internet can decide whether to "trust" you -- the owner. TCPA isn't about reporting to you whether you can trust your own PC (e.g. whether it has a virus), it doesn't include that function. It exists to report to record companies about whether you have installed any software that lets you make copies of MP3s, or any free software to circumvent whatever feeble copy-protection system the record company uses. Intel is pushing HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) which is high speed hardware encryption that runs only on the cable between the computer and its CRT or LCD monitor. The only signal being encrypted is the one that the user is sitting there watching, so why is it encrypted? So that the user can't record what they can view! If the cable is tampered with, the video chip degrades the signal to "analog VCR quality". 　　這不只蘋果電腦誤導了消費者，這是非常盛行的。Sony可攜式的MD錄音機 只能接受數位輸入，從不能數位輸出。聲音是進來了，不過只在低品質的類比 格式放行。Intel 宣揚著他們TCPA（安全電腦平台架構） (Trusted Computing Platform Architecture) 的神奇。你必須在透過仔細的閱讀，才能在字裡行間 裡發現：他所做的僅僅是透過對你的個人電腦使用行為不斷監看，才能讓網路上 隨機的第三者藉著這些來決定是否要〝信任你〞--也就是那些擁有者。TCPA不會 告知你是否可以信任你自己的電腦（例如，電腦裏是否有病毒），他也沒有這些 功能。他會持續的告知唱片公司你是否安裝了任何能夠讓你製造 MP3的軟體，或 任何的自由軟體去避開唱片公司脆弱的防拷系統。 Intel正在推動「高解析度數 位內容保護」(HDCP，High Definition Content Protection)，這是只會在你的 電腦和螢幕中間的接線上運作的一個高速硬體加密裝置。那些信號僅僅是為了讓 使用者「坐在那裡看」而加密的，那為什麼他們要加密呢？因為這樣一來，使用 者就不能夠把他們看到的任何東西轉錄起來啦！如果接線規格被不善意的變更了 ，那我們的影像晶片將會降級成〝類比 VCR的畫質〞。 　　Intel is also pushing SDMI and CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media) which would turn your own storage media (disk drives, flash ram, zip disks, etc) into co-conspirators with movie and record companies, to deny you (the owner of the computer and the media) the ability to store things on those media and get them back later. Instead some of the stored items would only come back with restrictions wired into the extraction software -- restrictions that are not under the control of the equipment owner, or of the law, but are matters of contract between the movie/record companies and the equipment/software makers. Such as, "you can't record copyrighted music on unencrypted media". If you try to record a song off the FM radio onto a CPRM audio recorder, it will refuse to record or play it, because it's watermarked but not encrypted. Even when recording your own brand-new original audio, the default settings for analog recordings are that they can never be copied, nor ever copied in higher fidelity than CD's, and that only one copy can be made even if copying is ever authorized (if the other restrictions are somehow bypassed). Intel and IBM don't tell you these things; you have to get to Page 11 of Exhibit B-1, "CPPM Compliance Rules for DVD-Audio" on page 45 of the 70-page "Interim CPRM/CPPM Adopters Agreement", available only after you fill out intrusive personal questions after following the link from http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/. All Intel tells you that CPPM will "give consumers access to more music" http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/aw032300.htm). Lying to your customers to mislead them into buying your products is wrong. 　　Intel 也正在推行SDMI和CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media，可複製媒體版權保護技術) ，這些是能把你自己的儲存媒體（磁碟 ， flash記憶體， zip磁碟，等等）轉變成電影或唱片公司的同謀，是要禁 止你（電腦和媒體的持有人）具有把東西存在那些物品上，然後等會兒再拿 出來用的能力。或以某些被解密軟體所限制（綁死）的儲存媒體代替 -- 限 制那些業者無力可管的設備使用者，或業者無力控制的法律，但這些事情只 會是「電影／唱片公司」與「設備／軟體製造業者」的合約。例如，〝你不 能把已經防拷的音樂轉到未經加密的媒體上〞。如果你試著將FM廣播上的歌 轉錄到CPRM的錄音器上，它會拒絕錄下或播放那些歌，因為錄音器有浮水印 功能但歌卻是未加密的。甚至當你要錄下你自己剛做好的聲音時，為了類比 錄音的預設值會使你完全不能拷貝，或完全不可能得到如同CD音質的高傳真 版本，然而你卻只能做一份拷貝即使你經過許可（如果其他的限制經由某種 途徑被規避了）。 Intel和 IBM不會告訴你這些事情；你必須先在 Exhibit B-1的第11頁找到〝CPRM為了 DVD-Audio 所定的服從規定〞(CPPM Compliance Rules for DVD-Audio)，然後在長達70頁的第45頁找到〝中程 CPRM/CPPM接受者契約〞(Interim CPRM/CPPM Adopters Agreement)，然後 僅僅在你填寫完「http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/」這個連結裡強制性的 私人問題之後才能獲得。所有 Intel會告訴你只有：CPPM會〝讓消費者取的 更多音樂〞 (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/aw032300.htm)。 對你的顧客們說謊並且誤導他們去買你的產品是不對的。 　　Scientific research is unpublishable 　　科學性的研究成果將會被禁止發布 　　What is wrong is when scientific researchers are unable to study the field or to publish their findings. Professor Ed Felten of Princeton studied the SDMI "watermarking" systems in some detail, as part of a public study deliberately permitted by the secretive SDMI committee, so they could determine whether the public could crack their chosen schemes. (SDMI would not allow EFF to join its deliberations, saying that we had no legitimate interest in the proceedings because we weren't a music company or a manufacturer. There are no consumer or civil rights representatives in the SDMI consortium.) Prof. Felten was in the New York Times last week, saying the SDMI people and Princeton's lawyers are now telling him that he can't release his promised details on what was wrong with these watermarking systems, because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's OK to tell the SDMI companies how easy it is to break their scheme, but it isn't OK to tell the public or other scientific researchers. 　　當科學的研究人員不能研究某些領域或公開他們的發現時，這是錯誤的。 普林斯頓的教授Edmund Felten 仔細的研究了數位音樂版權保護組織SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative)〝數位浮水印〞系統的一些細節，但部 份公開研究要先被SDMI密秘的委員會批准，以便讓委員會確定哪些公佈的細節 ，可能會破壞了他們所選擇使用的技術。（SDMI不會允許電子邊境基金會參加 他們的商討，理由是因為我們不是一家音樂公司或相關業者，所以我們沒有參 加訴訟程序的合法團體地位。沒有消費者或在SDMI協會中作為人民權利代表。 ）教授Felten上週在紐約時報說過：SDMI的那些人和普林斯頓的律師正告訴他 ：他不能公開這些他承諾過關於這些浮水印系統哪裡出錯的細節，因為數位千 禧年版權法案（規避破解條款）的規定。若他告訴SDMI公司，他是多麼的容易 破解他們的技術，那則不會有事情，但是他卻不能告訴公眾或其他的科學研究 人員。 　　Competition is prevented 　　競爭被避免 　　What is wrong is when competitors are unable to build competing devices or software, vying for the favor of the consumers in the free market. Instead those devices are banned or threatened, and that software is censored and driven underground. Such as the open-source DeCSS and LiViD DVD player programs. Such as DVD players worldwide that can play American "Region 1" DVDs. EFF spent more than a million dollars last year in defending the publisher of a security magazine, and a Norwegian teenager, from movie industry attempts to have them censored and jailed, respectively, for publishing and writing competing software that lets DVDs be played or copied but does not follow the restrictive contracts that the movie studios imposed on most players. The movie studios spent $4 million on prosecuting the New York case alone. Few or no manufacturers are willing to put ordinary digital audio recorders on the market -- you see lots of MP3 players but where are the stereo MP3 recorders? They've been chilled into nonexistence by the threat of lawsuits. The ones that claim to record, record only "voice quality monaural". 　　當競爭對手不能建立具有競爭優勢的設備或軟體，以在自由市場中爭取消費 者青睞。取而代之的卻是那些裝置被禁止或備受威脅，而軟體因為被監控而必須 轉為地下化。例如開放原始碼的 DeCSS和 LiViD的 DVD播放機計畫。例如希望全 世界的 DVD播放機都能夠撥放美國的〝區域 1〞 DVD。電子邊境基金會去年花費 上百萬美元的經費為了保衛安全雜誌的出版商，和一個挪威的青少年，以抵禦電 影工業嘗試分別地對他們進行監控並且使之入獄，為了出版並撰寫 DVD競爭軟體 ，以期能夠讓 DVD被播放或拷貝，而能不服從電影公司強加在大部分播放機的限 制性合約。電影公司們花費四百萬美元，獨自地進行一件紐約的訴訟。極少數甚 至沒有製造業者是樂意將原本的數位聲音唱片放在市場上 -- 也許你看到許多 MP3撥放機，但是哪來的立體聲 MP3錄音機呢？他們早已受訴訟案的威脅而被凍 結到根本不存在。一些宣稱有錄音功能的，都只能夠錄到單聲道的語音品質。 　　Abuse of "copyright protection" rewards monopolies 　　〝著作權〞應得獎勵的濫用 　　What is wrong is when the controls that are enacted to protect the rights reserved under copyright are used for other purposes. Not to protect the existing rights, but to create new rights at the whim of the copyright holder. Movie companies insisted on a "region coding" system for DVDs, because they would make less money if DVD movies were actually tradeable worldwide under existing free-trade laws. (They couldn't charge high theatre ticket prices if the same movie was simultaneously available on DVDs, and they couldn't combine the ad campaigns of the theatres and the DVDs if they waited a long time between releasing it to theatres and releasing it to DVDs.) This system results in the situation where a consumer can buy a DVD player legally, buy a DVD legally, and put the two together, and the movie won't play. The user has every legal right to view the movie, but it won't play, because if it did, movie companies might make less money. Similar controls exist in DVDs to prevent people from fast-forwarding past the ads or those nonsensical "FBI Warnings". 　　當把著作權用做其他意圖，而操控制定法律以作為權利的保留是不對的。 這不是為了保護既有的權利，而是為了著作權的持有人的靈感創造權利。電影 公司堅決要有 DVD的〝區域解碼〞系統，因為如果 DVD影片能夠在現存的自由 貿易法確實地在全世界流通交易，那他們可能會賺得比較少。（他們不能提高 戲院的票價如果某些影片同時能夠在 DVD上觀看；如果他們打算先在戲院放映 一段長時間之後才出 DVD版，那他們也因此而不能幫戲院和 DVD版進行廣告造 勢宣傳。）這個系統會導致如下的狀況：使用者即使合法的購買 DVD播放機， 即使合法的購買 DVD影碟，然後把這兩者擺在一起，影片仍然不會播放。使用 者享有每一個觀看影片的合法權利，卻還是不能播放，因為如果這是可以的， 那影片公司就會賺比較少錢。相似的狀況存在於 DVD影碟中用來防止人們快轉 跳過那些無意義的〝FBI 的警告〞（影片前的版權警告）。 　　Microsoft built some deliberately incompatible protocols into Windows 2000 so that competing Unix machines could not be used as DNS servers in some circumstances. Microsoft released a specification but only under an encrypted file format that claimed to require that readers agree not to use the information to compete with them. When someone decrypted the trivial encryption without agreeing to the terms, Microsoft threatened to use the DMCA to sue Slashdot, the popular free-software news web site, who published the results. (Luckily for us, Slashdot has a backbone and said "go ahead, we'll defend that suit" and Microsoft chickened out.) Copyright doesn't grant the right to prevent competition, or to restrict global trade -- but somehow the legislation that was enacted to protect copyrights is being used to do just those things. 　　微軟故意在視窗2000之內製造一些不相容的協定，以便跟Unix的機器競爭， 讓那些機器在一些環境中的不能夠當作 DNS伺服器。微軟釋出了一件規格文件， 但用的卻只是一個經過編碼加密的檔案格式，宣稱讀者必須同意不要使用資料來 和他們競爭。當某人幫這個普通的編碼解密時卻未同意這些時，微軟則威脅使用 DMCA法案控告Slashdot，一個把這件事情報導出來的廣受歡迎的自由軟體新聞網 站。（我們幸運地，Slashdot有一個網路骨幹，並且可以說：〝繼續前進，我們 將會防衛這項控告〞，而且微軟將怯懦退出）版權不允許避免競爭的權利，或限 制全球的貿易 -- 但是不知何故，這些保護版權的立法被制定成用來只做那些事 情。 　　Social policy is created without public input 　　社會的政策制定時沒有公眾的參與 　　What is wrong is when social policy is created in smoke-filled back rooms, between movie/record company executives and computer company executives, not by open public discussion, by legislatures, and by courts. The CPRM specification, for example, allows a distributor of a bag of bits (who has access to software with this capability) to decide that future recipients will not be permitted to make copies of that bag of bits. Or that two copies are permitted, but not three. This policy is not legally enforceable, it was not created by law. The law says something different. But the policy will be enforced by equipment built by all the major manufacturers, because they will be sued by the movie/record companies if they dare to build interoperating equipment that lets consumers make three copies, or copies limited only by their legal rights. Is it unexpected that such back-room policies end up favoring the parties who were in the room, at the expense of consumers and the public? 　　當社會的政策在充滿煙霧的小房間中，在電影／唱片公司高級主管之間被制 定，卻沒有被公眾、被立法機關、以及被法院公開的討論是不對的。舉例來說， CPRM規格，允許一群位元的通路商（誰有對這軟體存取的能力) 來決定之後的接 收者將不被允許重製那一群位元。或許拷貝兩份副本是准許的，但三份就不行。 這個政策依法不可行，它不是根據法律所制定的。法律指出有些東西是不可一概 而論的。但是這項政策，將會被所有的設備製造業者，在製造這些設備的時候來 執行，因為他們如果膽敢製造能讓消費者們都能操作的設備，來拷貝三份備份， 或者僅是被他們的法律權利所限制的多份備份，那製造業者將會被電影／唱片公 司控告。這在秘不公開環境裡所制定的政策，是讓人如此意想不到地，支持著那 些曾經也是那小房間裡的一份子（業者），但卻是建立在損害消費者和公眾的利 益之上？ 　　Copyright's balance of benefits is lost 　　版權為平衡利益的功能消失了 　　What is wrong is when the balance between the rights of creators and the rights of freedom of speech and the press is lost. Any increase in the rights of creators is a decrease in the public's right of free speech and publication. Whenever copyrights are extended, the public domain shrinks. The right of criticism, the right to dispute someone else's rendition of the truth, is damaged. The First Amendment gives an almost absolute right to publish; the Copyright clause gives a limited right to prevent publication by others. Any expansion of the right to prevent publication diminishes the right to publish. For example, few works created after 1910 have entered the public domain, if their owners did not abandon their copyright, because as the years went by, the term of copyright kept getting extended. But the copy-rights created by technological restrictions are not even designed to end. There is nothing in the SDMI or CPRM spec that says, "After 2100 you will be permitted to copy the movies from 1910". 　　使創作者的權利，與言論自由以及新聞評論之間的平衡消失是不對的。對 創作者權利的任何增加，就是對公眾領域的言論與出版自由的減少。每當版權 被延伸，公眾領域的部份就會收縮。批評的權利、質疑某人的權利、或者翻譯 事實的權利，這些，是被損壞的。美國憲法第一修正案(The First Amendment) 賦予我們絕對的出版權；版權條款給予我們一個有限的權利，以禁止作品被其 他人出版。任何對禁止出版權利的擴張就，減少了出版的權利。例如，在1910 年後，僅有少數的作品在公眾領域被創造，因為隨著一年又一年的過去，版權 的這些期限被繼續地延展。但是藉由科技限制所達成的〝著作（拷貝）—權〞 甚至不會被設計成，能有結束的一天的。在SDMI或CPRM規格當中所說的根本什 麼意義都沒有：〝在2100年之後，你就可以被允許拷貝1910年的電影了〞。 　　Beneficiaries are a tiny fraction of society 　　受益人只是社會極小的部分 　　What is wrong is that a tiny tail of "copyright protection" is wagging the big dog of communications among humans. As Andy Odlyzko pointed out, http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/eworld.html, see "Content is not king" and "The history of communications and its implications for the Internet"), "The annual movie theater ticket sales in the U.S. are well under $10 billion. The telephone industry collects that much money every two weeks!" Distorting the law and the technology of human communication and computing, in order to protect the interests of copyright holders, makes the world poorer overall. Even if it didn't violate fundamental policies for the long-term stability of societies, it would be the wrong economic decision. 　　讓〝版權保護〞成為人類溝通之間的枝微末節，是不對的。如同Andy Odlyzko所指出的，( http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/eworld.html ，找到〝內容不是國王〞，〝溝通的歷史和它對網際網路的意涵〞 )，〝美國 年度電影戲院售票賣的好的也在一百億美金之下。電話產業每二星期就收集到 那麼多的金錢！〞扭曲法律和人類的通訊與電腦科技和，為了要確保版權持有 人的利害，卻使得世界整體卻變得更貧窮了。即使這不違犯為社會的長期安定 所定的基本面政策，但他卻會是錯誤的經濟決定。 　　Society can truly eliminate scarcity, but not this way! 　　社會能真正的消除貧乏，但不能經由這種途徑！ 　　What is wrong is that we have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity. We now have the means to duplicate any kind of information that can be compactly represented in digital media. We can replicate it worldwide, to billions of people, for very low costs, affordable by individuals. We are working hard on technologies that will permit other sorts of resources to be duplicated this easily, including arbitrary physical objects ("nanotechnology"; see http://www.foresight.org). The progress of science, technology, and free markets have produced an end to many kinds of scarcity. A hundred years ago, more than 99% of Americans were still using outhouses, and one out of every ten children died in infancy. Now even the poorest Americans have cars, television, telephones, heat, clean water, sanitary sewers -- things that the richest millionaires of 1900 could not buy. These technologies promise an end to physical want in the near future. 　　我們已經發明一些用來消除貧乏的科技，但是我們正存心拋棄它們，使那 些從貧乏中獲利的人們更加有利，我們現在有辦法從數位媒體中，把那些用壓 縮所表現的任何類型的資訊複製出來。我們能在全世界為數十億的人，用非常 低的成本複製它們，而使這些能以非常低的花費讓個人負擔得起。我們正在科 技上不斷努力地工作，使得其他類型的資源能被能夠輕易的複製，包括任意的 實際物體（〝奈米技術(nanotechnology)〞；見http://www.foresight.org） 。科學、技術、以及自由市場的進程已經為許多的貧乏劃下句點。一百年以前 ，99％以上的美國人仍在使用戶外的廁所，同時每個十個孩子就有一個在幼年 死亡。現在即使最貧窮的美國人都擁有汽車、電視、電話、暖氣、乾淨的水、 衛生的下水道 -- 這些事物即使是1990年最富有的百萬富翁都買不到的。這些 科技更為不遠的未來，承諾了一個對實體需求的終止。 　　We should be rejoicing in mutually creating a heaven on earth! Instead, those crabbed souls who make their living from perpetuating scarcity are sneaking around, convincing co-conspirators to chain our cheap duplication technology so that it won't make copies -- at least not of the kind of goods they want to sell us. This is the worst sort of economic protectionism -- beggaring your own society for the benefit of an inefficient local industry. The record and movie distribution companies are careful not to point this out to us, but that is what is happening. 　　我們應該為正在共同創造地球上的天堂而歡欣！取而代之的，是週遭那些 乖張的、藉以綿延貧乏來維生的靈魂將潛藏起來，我們深信，將不再出現又一 個，用鐵鍊綁住我們便宜的重製科技的共謀者 -- （至少不是讓他們以貨物的 型式賣給我們。這是最壞的一種經濟保護貿易主義） -- 為了無效率的地方性 工業利益而使你自己社會貧窮。唱片和電影通路公司很小心不告訴我們這點， 但是那卻是正在發生的事情。 　　If by 2030 we have invented a matter duplicator that's as cheap as copying a CD today, will we outlaw it and drive it underground? So that farmers can make a living keeping food expensive, so that furniture makers can make a living preventing people from having beds and chairs that would cost a dollar to duplicate, so that builders won't be reduced to poverty because a comfortable house can be duplicated for a few hundred dollars? Yes, such developments would cause economic dislocations for sure. But should we drive them underground and keep the world impoverished to save these peoples' jobs? And would they really stay underground, or would the natural advantages of the technology cause the "underground" to rapidly overtake the rest of society? 　　如果2030之前，我們發明了一個是像今天拷貝CD那樣，一樣便宜的事件 重製機，我們必須宣判它違法而驅使它地下化？藉此讓農夫能經由維持昂貴 的食物來謀生、使得家具業者藉以防止人們花一美元來複製床和椅子、使得 房地產業不會為窮人減價，因為一棟舒服的房子就能以幾百元美金就複製？ 是的，如此的發展當然會引起經濟的脫節。但是我們就應該驅使這些事物地 下化，並藉以維持世界的貧瘠來保護這些人的工作？而且他們就真的會停留 在檯面下，亦或是這些科技的自然裨益使得這些〝檯面下〞的東西，快速的 越過了社會的停滯不前？ 　　I think we should embrace the era of plenty and work out how to mutually live in it. I think we should work on understanding how people can make a living by creating new things and providing services, rather than by restricting the duplication of existing things. That's what I've personally spent ten years doing, founding a successful free software support company. That company, Cygnus Solutions, annually invests more than $10 million into writing software, giving it away freely, and letting anyone modify or duplicate it. It funds that by collecting more than $25 million from customers, who benefit from having that software exist and be reliable and widespread. The company is now part of Red Hat, Inc -- which also makes its living by empowering its customers without restricting the duplication of its work. It's no coincidence that the open source, free software, and Linux communities are among the first to become alarmed at copy protection. They are actively making their livings or hobbies out of eliminating scarcity and increasing freedom in the operating system and application software markets. They see the real improvement in the world that results -- and the ugly reactions of the monopolistic and oligopolistic forces that such efforts obsolete. 　　我認為我們應該充分的擁抱這富裕的時代，並且找到在這裡共同生活的方式。 我認為我們應該，為了解如何讓人們藉由創造新事物，並且提供服務來維生而努力 ，卻不是藉由限制對已存在的事物進行複製。這是為什麼我花自己十年的時間，來 鑄造一個成功的自由軟體支援公司。那家公司，Cygnus解決方案（Cygnus Solutions），每年投資比一千萬美金更多的錢用來撰寫軟體，讓它免費（自由地 ）的釋出，並且讓任何人能夠修改或複製它。它從那些因可靠的、廣佈的軟體的存 在而受益的客戶那邊，收集到比二千五百萬美金更多的基金。而這間公司現在是紅 帽公司的一部份 -- 那也是一家藉由帶給客戶更多的權利，卻完全不藉由限制複製 它們的成果，如此來賺錢的公司。開放原始碼、免費的軟體、和 Linux社群對於重 製保護的擔憂並非巧合。他們是積極地為了能消除生活或興趣的貧乏來謀生，而且 增加在作業系統和應用程式軟體市場的自由。他們看見世界中真實的進步所帶來的 成果 -- 以及那些因壟斷和寡頭勢力，而致使這些努力白費的醜陋反動。 　　Converting the whole world to operate without scarcity is a huge task. Such a large economic shift would take decades to spread through the entire world economy, making billions of new winners and new losers. We will be extremely lucky if by 2030 we are prepared to end scarcity without massive social turmoil, including riots, civil unrest, and world war. If we are to find a peaceful path to an era of plenty, we should be starting HERE AND NOW, transforming the industries we have already eliminated scarcity in -- text, audio, and video. Companies that can't adjust should disappear and be replaced by those who can. As these whole industries learn how to exist and thrive without creating artificial scarcity, they will provide models and expertise for other industries, which will need to change when their own inefficient production is replaced by efficient duplication ten or fifteen years from now. Relying on copy-protection now would send us in exactly the wrong direction! Copy protection pretends that the law and some fancy footwork with industrial cartels can maintain our current economic structures, in the face of a hurricane of positive technological change that is picking them up and sending them whirling like so many autumn leaves. 　　將整個世界轉換到無慮缺乏的工作是一個極大的任務。如此的一個大的經濟變 化可能會得花上數十年的時間，來傳佈到整個的世界經濟，製造出數以億計的新贏 家和輸家。如果我們能在2030年之前準備好，能不經由龐大的社會騷動來終結貧乏 ，那我們將會極端地幸運；包括了暴動、文明的動盪、以及世界大戰。如果我們在 試著找到一條通往豐饒時代的和平道路，那我們應該從當下就開始，將我們早已消 彌含有以下貧乏的產業轉型 -- 文字、聲音、和影像。不能修正以適應的公司，應 該消失而被替換成那些他們做得到的。當這些整體的產業學習該如何生存而繁榮， 不經由人造的貧窮而繁榮的時候，他們會從現在的十到十五年間，為那些其他需要 改變自己沒效率的生產過程的產業，提供用以替換而有效率模式和專業。仰賴重製 保護，現在確切地將會把我們送往完全地錯誤的方向！重製保護，佯稱法律和一些 做著花俏跑龍套工作的產業聯盟，能維持我們的現在經濟的結構；當面對帶有正面 意義的科技變革暴風時，他們將會被急速地捲起，就如同秋天的落葉。 　　Summary 　　小結 　　This may be a longer discussion than you wanted, Ron, but as you can see, I think there are a lot of things wrong with how copy protection techologies are being foisted on an unsuspecting public. I'd like to hear from you a similar discussion. Being devil's advocate for a moment, why should self-interested companies be permitted to shift the balance of fundamental liberties, risking free expression, free markets, scientific progress, consumer rights, societal stability, and the end of physical and informational want? Because somebody might be able to steal a song? That seems a rather flimsy excuse. I await your response. 　　這可能是比你所想要的更長的討論， Ron，但當你能夠目睹的時候，我想有許 多隨著重製保護科技所帶來的錯誤的事情，正被偷偷的植入如此信任他人的公眾身 上。我想要從你那聽到相似的討論。在此刻，那些身為反對而反對的人們，為什麼 這些只關心利身厲害的公司，應該被允許改變基本權利的平衡：人權自由、冒險的 自由言論、自由市場、科學的進程、消費者權利、社會的安定、以及物質和資訊化 所冀希最終達到的境界？因為某人或許能夠偷走一首歌？更精確的來說，這是一個 非常脆弱託辭。我等待你的回應。 　　John Gilmore 　　Electronic Frontier Foundation 　　電子邊境基金會 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 　　Copyright 2001 John Gilmore 　　John Gilmore 版權所有，2001年 　　This document is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. 　　這份文件是自由軟體；你能重新散佈或修改它，就如同自由軟體基金會所發表 的 GNU公眾授權許可的條件之下；或者符合第二版，或稍後的任何版本（只要你喜 歡）的授權執照。 　　This document is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. 　　希望這份文件的散佈是有所助益的，但是不帶有任何的法律條款；甚至不包含 可商用或為一個特別目的所定法律條款。欲知更多的細節請參照 GNU公眾授權許可 。 　　You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this document; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. 　　你應該要連同這份文件，一起收到一份 GNU公眾授權許可的副本；如果沒有， 請寫信到自由軟體基金會，Free Software Foundation Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw) ◆ From: 61-216-45-93.HINET-IP.hinet.net
‣ 更多 macpaul 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #xDq8c00 (CKEFGISC-1st)