“Piracy”

Since the inception of the law regulating creative property, there has been a war against “piracy.” The precise contours of this concept, “piracy,” are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to capture. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach of English copyright law to include sheet music,
A person may use the copy by playing it, but he has no right to rob the author of the profit, by multiplying copies and disposing of them for his own use.1
Today we are in the middle of another “war” against “piracy.” The Internet has provoked this war. The Internet makes possible the efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing is among the most efficient of the efficient technologies the Internet enables. Using distributed intelligence, p2p systems facilitate the easy spread of content in a way unimagined a generation ago.
This efficiency does not respect the traditional lines of copyright. The network doesn't discriminate between the sharing of copyrighted and uncopyrighted content. Thus has there been a vast amount of sharing of copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the war, as copyright owners fear the sharing will “rob the author of the profit.”
The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and increasingly to technology to defend their “property” against this “piracy.” A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is being raised to believe that “property” should be “free.” Forget tattoos, never mind body piercing—our kids are becoming thieves!
There's no doubt that “piracy” is wrong, and that pirates should be punished. But before we summon the executioners, we should put this notion of “piracy” in some context. For as the concept is increasingly used, at its core is an extraordinary idea that is almost certainly wrong.
The idea goes something like this:
Creative work has value; whenever I use, or take, or build upon the creative work of others, I am taking from them something of value. Whenever I take something of value from someone else, I should have their permission. The taking of something of value from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of piracy.
This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the “if value, then right" theory of creative property2—if there is value, then someone must have a right to that value. It is the perspective that led a composers' rights organization, ASCAP, to sue the Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.3 There was “value” (the songs) so there must have been a “right”—even against the Girl Scouts.
This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative property should work. It might well be a possible design for a system of law protecting creative property. But the “if value, then right" theory of creative property has never been America's theory of creative property. It has never taken hold within our law.
Instead, in our tradition, intellectual property is an instrument. It sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this turned around. We have become so concerned with protecting the instrument that we are losing sight of the value.
The source of this confusion is a distinction that the law no longer takes care to draw—the distinction between republishing someone's work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern; copyright law today regulates both.
Before the technologies of the Internet, this conflation didn't matter all that much. The technologies of publishing were expensive; that meant the vast majority of publishing was commercial. Commercial entities could bear the burden of the law—even the burden of the Byzantine complexity that copyright law has become. It was just one more expense of doing business.
But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of the law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of commercial creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that expansion would not matter much if copyright law regulated only “copying,” when the law regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does, the extension matters a lot. The burden of this law now vastly outweighs any original benefit—certainly as it affects noncommercial creativity, and increasingly as it affects commercial creativity as well. Thus, as we'll see more clearly in the chapters below, the law's role is less and less to support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against competition. Just at the time digital technology could unleash an extraordinary range of commercial and noncommercial creativity, the law burdens this creativity with insanely complex and vague rules and with the threat of obscenely severe penalties. We may be seeing, as Richard Florida writes, the “Rise of the Creative Class.”4 Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of regulation of this creative class.
These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper context the current battles about behavior labeled “piracy.”

中文简体ibuzzo粗稿原版
从保护创作权的法律被创建的那一天起，反盗版的战争就没有停止过。对于“盗版”这个概念，我们很难精确的去概括它。但是现实中非正当的盗版行为却很容易被我们察觉到。正如大法官曼斯菲尔德勋爵[?]在一个将乐谱纳入英国版权法管辖范围的案例中这样写道，
“一个人可以在演奏的时候使用乐谱[?]的副本，但是他没有权利通过复制和以占有为目[?]的的发布这些副本来盗取作者的利益。”
而今，我们正身处另一场反击“盗版”的战争中。因特网挑起了这场战争。网络使内容的高效传播成为可能。点对点的文件共享方式便是因特网高效传播技术应用的典范。通过分布式技术，点对点传播系统以一种旧时代科技难以想象的方式促进了内容的快捷传播。
这种快捷的传播方式没有顾及到版权法的一贯方针[?]。网络对于其上共享的内容是否拥有版权并不加以区分，正因为这样，大量的拥有版权的内容在网络上被共享着。这些内容的共享导致了矛盾的激化，版权所有者们开始担心这种共享会“盗取他们的利益”。
版权卫士们于是诉诸于法庭和立法机关，并同时不断地在技术方面打击盗版以捍卫他们的“权利”，这些所谓的“版权卫士”们警告说，一代美国人正在逐渐相信“权利”等同于“自由”，不要再担心什么“纹身”以及“身体穿刺”了——我们的下一代正在成为“不劳而获者”。
毫无疑问“盗版”是不正当的行为，盗版者理应受到惩罚。但是在我们挥舞起惩罚的皮鞭之前，我们应该给“盗版”这个词确立一个并非断章取义的概念。一个特指的且核心思想几乎是错误的关于“盗版”的概念正在日益频繁地被滥用。
这些概念可以归纳如下：
创造性作品具有价值，无论何时，当人们使用，获取或者再创作（再生[?]）他人的创造性作品时，都是在获取他人创造的价值。因此，无论何时，人获取这种价值时，都必须得到他人的允许。未经他人允许而获取价值的行为是不正当的，是一种盗版行为。
如 今，这种观点备受争议。纽约大学Rochelle Dreyfuss教授批评这种认为有价值便一定有人拥有支配这些价值的权利的想法为“有价值便有权利”理论。正是这种理论导致了ASCAP著作人权利保障 组织因女童军没有为在野营活动中演唱歌曲付费而向她们提出起诉。有价值便有权利，尽管这种权利与女童军精神相抵触。
这种观点可以被认为是对著作权的一种理解,也可以被认为是建立一种关于保护著作权的法律体系的可行设想。但“有价值便有权利”的著作权理论决不是美国式的著作权理论，这种理论从未写入过美国的法律。
正好相反，根据美国的传统，知识产权只是一种手段。它在建立起繁荣的创造性社会根基的同时也保留了有用的创造力价值。现今的争论完全本末倒置，我们开始过多地致力于去保护这种手段，却正在忽视价值本身。

引发这种混乱的根源就是法律已不再去平衡对一件作品的再发布和基于其再创作之间的差别。版权法在创立之初只会关注以上其一，而现在两者均受版权法管辖。
在互联网科技高速发展之前，这种合并管辖并没有什么问题，因为当时的出版费用昂贵；这就意味着当时绝大多数的出版是商业性的。尽管这是版权法所带来的充满繁文缛节的负担，但是商业机构还能够承受。这不过是商业上的一笔小的开支。
但 是随着互联网的诞生，界定此法律正常管辖范围的限制便逐渐消失了。这部法律不仅仅管辖商业作者的作品，更是将此管辖有力的施加到了任何人的身上。如果版权 法仅仅只是管辖“翻版”也就算了，但是当这部法律的管辖界限变得越来越宽广和模糊的时候，其管辖范围的扩张就显得非比寻常了。如今版权法所带来的负担大大 的超过了其原本应该带来的权益——版权法确实正在像日益加强控制商业作品一样的在控制非商业作品。因此，在下面的几章中，我们将会清楚地看到，这部法律对 创造的支持是越来越少，而其却越来越多的去保护特定产业，对抗竞争。现在，数字科技可以扩展商业和非商业的非凡创造领域， 而版权法却用繁复含糊的条款阻碍这种创造，并以极其恶毒严厉的处罚作恐吓。我们可以看到，正如理查德·弗罗里达所写，“创意新贵在崛起”，不幸的是，我们 同样看到旨在限制这群“新贵”的“新规”也正在涌出泛滥！
这些法规在我们的传统中没有任何意义， 我们应当对我们的传统稍加理解，并将这些法规一一归位，将他们投入到眼下这场针对所谓“盗版”的战争中去。
中文简体bxy校后版
管制创作财产的法律被创建之初，就有了反盗版的战争。对于“盗版”这个概念，
我们很难精确的去勾勒它。但是现实中活生活现的侵犯权利的盗版行为却很容易
被我们察觉到。如曼斯菲尔德勋爵（Lord Mansfield）在一个将乐谱纳入英
国版权法管辖范围的案例中这样写道，
“一个人可以在演奏的时候使用乐谱，但是他无权出于自己使用的目的复制和处
置乐谱来盗取作者的利益。”

而今，我们正身处另一场反击“盗版”的战争中。因特网挑起了这场战争。网络
使内容的高效传播成为可能。对等网（Peer to Peer）的文件共享方式便是因特
网高效传播技术应用的中最高效的。通过分布式智能，对等网传播系统以一种旧
时代科技难以想象的方式促进了内容的高效传播。
这种高效的传播方式没有顾及到版权法传统的界线。网络对于其上共享的内容是
否拥有版权并不加以区分，正因为这样，大量的拥有版权的内容在网络上被共享
着。这些内容的共享导致了矛盾的激化，版权所有者们开始担心这种共享会“盗
取他们的利益”。
版权卫士们于是诉诸于法庭和立法机关，并同时不断地在技术方面打击盗版以捍
卫他们的“权利”，这些“版权卫士”们警告说，一代美国人正在逐渐相信”财
产“应该是”免费的“，不要再担心什么“纹身”以及“身体穿刺”了——我们
的下一代正在成为贼。
毫无疑问“盗版”是不正当的行为，盗版者理应受到惩罚。但是在召集刽子手之
前，我们应该给“盗版”这个词放到某些环境下谈。一个本质几乎肯定
是错误的“盗版”的概念正在被越来越多地使用。
这些概念可以归纳如下：
创造性作品具有价值，无论何时，当人们使用，获取或者再创作（再生[?]）他人
的创造性作品时，都减少了创造性作品具有的价值。因此，无论何时，人们从他
人那里拿走了有价值的东西，都必须得到他人的允许。未经他人允许而拿走他人
价值的行为是错的，是一种盗版行为。

这种观点与当下的辩论紧密相连。它就是纽约大学Rochelle Dreyfuss教授批评的
“有价值便有权利”的创造性财产的理论。正是这种理论导致了著作人权利保护
组织ASCAP因女童子军围着营火唱了没能付费的歌而向她们提出起诉。有价值（歌
曲）便必定有“权利”———连女童子军也不放过。

这种观点当然可以被认为是对著作权的一种说的过去的理解,甚至也可以是建立一
种保护创作财产权的法律体系的可行方案。但“有价值便有权利”的著作权理论
从不是美国式的著作权理论。我们（美国）的法律也从没采纳过这一观点。
根据美国的传统，知识产权只是一种手段。它在建立起繁荣的创造性社会根基的
同时仍然是服务于创造性价值的。现今的争论完全本末倒置，我们开始过多地致
力于去保护这种手段，却正在忽视价值本身。
引发这种混乱的根源就是法律已不再小心地去区分对一件作品的翻版和基于其的
再创作。版权法在创立之初只关注出版，而现在两者均受版权法管辖。
在互联网科技高速发展之前，这种合并管辖并没有什么问题，因为当时出版采用
的技术造成出版费用昂贵；这就意味着当时绝大多数的出版是商业性的。商业实
体能够承受法律的负担——哪怕版权法已经有了拜占庭式的复杂性，也能承受。
这不过是做生意的又一笔开支。

但是随着互联网的诞生，界定此法律正常管辖范围的限制便逐失了。这部法律不
仅仅管辖商业创造者的创造，实际上也管辖了任何人的创造。如果版权法如此的
扩充仅仅只是管辖“翻版”也就没什么大不了的，但是当这部法律的管辖界限像
现在这样变得越来越宽广和模糊的时候，其管辖范围的扩张就大不一样了。如今
版权法所带来的负担大大的超过了其任何原本带来的好处——对于非商业性创作
肯定是这种情况，对于商业性的创作的这种情况也在加剧。因此，在下面的几章
中，我们将会清楚地看到，这部法律对创造的支持是越来越少，而对特定产业对
抗竞争的保护是越来越多。就在数字科技可以释放商业和非商业的非凡创造领域
时，版权法却用愚蠢的繁复含糊的条款和受到恶毒的严厉刑罚的危险来阻碍这种
创造。我们可能会看到，如理查德·弗罗里达所写的，“创作阶级的崛起”。不
幸的是，我们正目睹的是对这一创作阶级管制反常的崛起。

这些法规负担在我们的传统中没有任何意义， 我们应当对我们的传统增加理解，
并将眼下针对所谓“盗版”行为的战斗放到适当的背景下来开始我们的讨论。

“Piracy” : (关于盗版（简体）, Tranlsator: iBuzzo, Reviewers: AlanJiang;)

---

Chapter 1: Creators

In 1928, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called Plane Crazy. In November, in New York City's Colony Theater, in the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound, Steamboat Willie brought to life the character that would become Mickey Mouse.
Synchronized sound had been introduced to film a year earlier in the movie The Jazz Singer. That success led Walt Disney to copy the technique and mix sound with cartoons. No one knew whether it would work or, if it did work, whether it would win an audience. But when Disney ran a test in the summer of 1928, the results were unambiguous. As Disney describes that first experiment,
A couple of my boys could read music, and one of them could play a mouth organ. We put them in a room where they could not see the screen and arranged to pipe their sound into the room where our wives and friends were going to see the picture.
The boys worked from a music and sound-effects score. After several false starts, sound and action got off with the gun. The mouth organist played the tune, the rest of us in the sound department bammed tin pans and blew slide whistles on the beat. The synchronization was pretty close.
The effect on our little audience was nothing less than electric. They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and motion. I thought they were kidding me. So they put me in the audience and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And it was something new!1
Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary talents, Ub Iwerks, put it more strongly: “I have never been so thrilled in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.”
Disney had created something very new, based upon something relatively new. Synchronized sound brought life to a form of creativity that had rarely—except in Disney's hands—been anything more than filler for other films. Throughout animation's early history, it was Disney's invention that set the standard that others struggled to match. And quite often, Disney's great genius, his spark of creativity, was built upon the work of others.
This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks another important transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film. That genius was Buster Keaton. The film was Steamboat Bill, Jr.
Keaton was born into a vaudeville family in 1895. In the era of silent film, he had mastered using broad physical comedy as a way to spark uncontrollable laughter from his audience. Steamboat Bill, Jr. was a classic of this form, famous among film buffs for its incredible stunts. The film was classic Keaton—wildly popular and among the best of its genre.
Steamboat Bill, Jr. appeared before Disney's cartoon Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,2 and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in The Jazz Singer that we get Steamboat Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song “Steamboat Bill,” that we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
This “borrowing” was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream films of his day.3 So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were built upon a base that was borrowed. Disney added to the work of others before him, creating something new out of something just barely old.
Sometimes this borrowing was slight. Sometimes it was significant. Think about the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. If you're as oblivious as I was, you're likely to think that these tales are happy, sweet stories, appropriate for any child at bedtime. In fact, the Grimm fairy tales are, well, for us, grim. It is a rare and perhaps overly ambitious parent who would dare to read these bloody, moralistic stories to his or her child, at bedtime or anytime.
Disney took these stories and retold them in a way that carried them into a new age. He animated the stories, with both characters and light. Without removing the elements of fear and danger altogether, he made funny what was dark and injected a genuine emotion of compassion where before there was fear. And not just with the work of the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950), Alice in Wonderland (1951), Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beauty (1959), 101 Dalmatians (1961), The Sword in the Stone (1963), and The Jungle Book (1967)—not to mention a recent example that we should perhaps quickly forget, Treasure Planet (2003). In all of these cases, Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix, and burn.
This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize its importance. We could call this “Disney creativity,” though that would be a bit misleading. It is, more precisely, “Walt Disney creativity”—a form of expression and genius that builds upon the culture around us and makes it something different.
In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact copyrighted. 4 That means that for thirty years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had an “exclusive right” to control certain uses of the work. To use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the copyright owner.
At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain. No permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and, hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a “lawyer-free zone.” Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to use and build upon in 1928. It was free for anyone— whether connected or not, whether rich or not, whether approved or not—to use and build upon.
This is the ways things always were—until quite recently. For most of our history, the public domain was just over the horizon. From 1790 until 1978, the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two years, meaning that most culture just a generation and a half old was free for anyone to build upon without the permission of anyone else. Today's equivalent would be for creative work from the 1960s and 1970s to now be free for the next Walt Disney to build upon without permission. Yet today, the public domain is presumptive only for content from before the Great Depression.
Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on “Walt Disney creativity.” Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until recently, and except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite universal.
Consider, for example, a form of creativity that seems strange to many Americans but that is inescapable within Japanese culture: manga, or comics. The Japanese are fanatics about comics. Some 40 percent of publications are comics, and 30 percent of publication revenue derives from comics. They are everywhere in Japanese society, at every magazine stand, carried by a large proportion of commuters on Japan's extraordinary system of public transportation.
Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories that these “graphic novels” tell. For the Japanese, manga cover every aspect of social life. For us, comics are “men in tights.” And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled with readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this interestingly different way.
But my purpose here is not to understand manga. It is to describe a variant on manga that from a lawyer's perspective is quite odd, but from a Disney perspective is quite familiar.
This is the phenomenon of doujinshi. Doujinshi are also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is just a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it differently—with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for what makes the doujinshi sufficiently “different.” But they must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject any copycat comic that is merely a copy.
These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are huge. More than 33,000 “circles” of creators from across Japan produce these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese come together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country, to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that market, but there is no sustained effort by those who control the commercial manga market to shut the doujinshi market down. It flourishes, despite the competition and despite the law.
The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained in the law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under Japanese copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors American copyright law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly “derivative works.” There is no general practice by doujinshi artists of securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the practice is simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt Disney did with Steamboat Bill, Jr. Under both Japanese and American law, that “taking” without the permission of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an infringement of the original copyright to make a copy or a derivative work without the original copyright owner's permission.
Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in the view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, “The early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan now. . . . American comics were born out of copying each other. . . . That's how [the artists] learn to draw—by going into comic books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them” and building from them.5
American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, “there are these rules and you have to stick to them.” There are things Superman “cannot” do. “As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.”
The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is precisely the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that explains the mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra, for example, hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these technical violations because they spur the manga market to be more wealthy and productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.6
The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges, is that the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not clear. It may well be that the market as a whole is better off if doujinshi are permitted rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi, and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this “free taking” by the doujinshi culture?
I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by a friend from a major Japanese law firm. “We don't have enough lawyers,” he told me one afternoon. There “just aren't enough resources to prosecute cases like this.”
This is a theme to which we will return: that regulation by law is a function of both the words on the books and the costs of making those words have effect. For now, focus on the obvious question that is begged: Would Japan be better off with more lawyers? Would manga be richer if doujinshi artists were regularly prosecuted? Would the Japanese gain something important if they could end this practice of uncompensated sharing? Does piracy here hurt the victims of the piracy, or does it help them? Would lawyers fighting this piracy help their clients or hurt them?
Let's pause for a moment.
If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they first start thinking about these issues, then just about now you should be puzzled about something you hadn't thought through before.
We live in a world that celebrates “property.” I am one of those celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call “intellectual property.”7 A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of value out there that “property” doesn't capture. I don't mean “money can't buy you love,” but rather, value that is plainly part of a process of production, including commercial as well as noncommercial production. If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking as wrong— even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered “fair.” There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
Thus, even though the things that Disney took—or more generally, the things taken by anyone exercising Walt Disney creativity—are valuable, our tradition does not treat those takings as wrong. Some things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that freedom is good.
The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into a publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would have stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever form, whether large or small.
Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that the copycat comic artists are “stealing.” This form of Walt Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular find it hard to say why.
It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you begin to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists without asking or paying for the privilege. (“Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were wrong about quantum physics?”) Acting companies perform adaptations of the works of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does anyone believe Shakespeare would be better spread within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
Creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the creativity that went before and that surrounds them now. That building is always and everywhere at least partially done without permission and without compensating the original creator. No society, free or controlled, has ever demanded that every use be paid for or that permission for Walt Disney creativity must always be sought. Instead, every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking—free societies more fully than unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
The hard question is therefore not whether a culture is free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is “ How free is this culture?” How much, and how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that freedom limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether affiliated with a studio or not?
Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so.

第一章 创作者
1928年，一个卡通形象诞生了。那年5月一只早期的米老鼠首次登场于一个名为“飞机迷”(Plane Crazy)的无声影片中。11月，在纽约城的Colony Theater ，首次公开发行了有同步声音的卡通影片“蒸汽船威利号”(Steamboat Willie) 激活了后来（风靡全球）的米老鼠。

同步声音是此前一年在影片“爵士歌手”中首次出现的。这次的成功促使沃特·迪斯尼把这个混合声音的技术复制到卡通影片中。没有人知道是否可以工作， 即使可以，也不知道是否能吸引观众。但是当迪斯尼在1928年夏天作试验的时候，其结果毋庸置疑。正如迪斯尼自己描述第一次试验的情景：

我这些男孩子有的能够看懂乐谱，其中一个还会演奏吹奏乐器。把他们放在一个房间里面，看不到屏幕。把他们的声音借助管道导入另一个房间，那里坐着太太们和朋友们，准备观看画面。

孩子们在音乐和音效乐谱之间忙碌。在经历了数次失败之后，声音和动作终于开始相互一致了。吹奏者演奏着乐曲，其他在声效房间的人敲打着铁盘或者按照节奏吹着哨子。同步的程度非常接近。

而对我们少的可怜的观众来说却产生了不亚于触电的效果。他们几乎是本能地随着声音和动作而做出响应。我本来以为他们在骗我。于是他们让我也坐到观众中间，重新播放影片。整个过程让人震惊，但是却无比奇妙！而且它是才出现的新东西！

迪斯尼后来的合伙人，也是动画界最优秀的天才之一的UB Iwerks 他的反应更强烈：“我一辈子从来没有如此振奋。此后(我想)也没有什么可以和这次相提并论的了。”

迪斯尼基于一些比较新的事物创造了一些全新的事物。在经过迪斯尼之手之前，同步声音并没有在其他影片中发挥重要的作用，甚至比不上电影的补白。在动画影片的早期历史中，正是迪斯尼的发明设定了行业标准，让其他人苦苦追随。而经常出现的情况是，迪斯尼的伟大天才和创造力的闪现，都是建立在别人的工作基础之上的。

这其中有很多相似性。你可能不知道1928年还经历了另一个重要的变化。那一年一个戏剧（与卡通相对）天才创作了他最后一部独立制作的无声电影。他就是巴斯特·基顿(Buster Keaton)。 这部影片是“蒸汽船小比尔号”(Steamboat Bill, Jr.)。

基顿1895年出生于一个杂耍家庭。在无声电影时期，他掌握了利用物理的舞台作为激发观众笑个不停的方法。“蒸汽船小比尔号”就是这种方式的经典之作，因为它难以置信的特效而在电影迷中声名卓著。这部电影业是基顿的经典，在同类的影片中是最棒和最流行的。

“蒸汽船小比尔号”比迪斯尼的卡通片“蒸汽船威利号”要早。而且不单单只是片名上的巧合。“蒸汽船威利号”直接模仿了“蒸汽船小比尔号”，两部片子都是基于相同的一首歌曲而创作的。我们不仅是从“爵士歌手”中同步声音的发明，而且从“蒸汽船小比尔号”（它又是从歌曲“蒸汽船比尔”而来）共同得到了“蒸汽船威利号”，进而得到了米老鼠。

这种“借用”方法并不罕见，无论是对迪斯尼还是对整个行业都是如此。迪斯尼一生中经常从主流的长片中照猫画虎。其他人也同样如此。早期的卡通片充斥了复制品，通常是对成功的影片稍加修改，重新讲述那些古老的故事。成功的关键是查别的精彩之处。对迪斯尼来说，正是音效让它的动画片变得分外夺目。后来，则是依靠它自身在卡通片生产线上的工作质量去竞争。然而这些副产品都是建筑于当初借用的基础。迪斯尼(常常)取材与一些已有的作品，再把那些稍显陈旧的内容翻新一下，创造出一点新的花样来。

有些时候这种借用是细微的。有些时候却是很明显的。拿格林童话中的故事来说。如果你和我一样健忘，你可能会认为这些故事都是非常幸福、甜蜜的故事，也适合在睡觉前讲给任何孩子听。事实上，格林的童话故事对我们来说应该非常恐怖。很少有或许只有那些有超级胆识的父母才敢把这些血腥的、满是说教的故事在睡觉前或者其他时间读给他们的孩子听。

迪斯尼把这些故事拿来并用另一种方式重新讲述一遍
，并把它们带入了一个新时代。他用角色和灯光让这些故事活动起来。他 并没有把那些恐惧和危险元素一起拿掉，而是让那些阴暗的部分变得搞笑，并在那些有恐惧情节的地方植入了一些纯粹的关怀情感。当然不仅仅是对格林童话作了这 样的处理。事实上，可以惊奇地看到迪斯尼的作品目录中放在一起有多少是从其他人的作品改编而来：白雪公主（1937年）、幻想曲（1940年）、皮诺曹 （1940年）、小飞象（1941年）、小鹿斑比（1942年）、南方之歌（1946年）、灰姑娘（1950年）、爱丽丝漫游奇境（1951年）、罗宾汉 （1952年）、彼得·潘（1953年）、小姐与流浪汉（1955年）、木兰（1998 年）、睡美人（1959年）、101斑点狗（1961年）、石中剑（1963年）、森林王子（1967年），还不算我们可能已经很快忘记的一部最近的例子 --星银岛（2003年）。在所有这些例子中，迪斯尼（不是迪斯尼公司）从他周围的文化中撷取了创意，把这些创意和他自己的独特天才进行了混合，然后把这 种混合户融入了自己的文化精髓中。撷取、混合以及融合。

这就是一种创造方式。也是我们应当记住和鼓励的创造方式。有人说出了这种方式实际上没有其他创造方式。我们不需要想那么多去评价其重要性。 我们可以称之为“迪斯尼创造法”，尽管这有点误导。更准确地说，“沃特迪·斯尼创造法”，是一种表达方式和基于我们周围文化创造出不同事物的才能。

1928年的迪斯尼基以自由描绘的文化是相对新鲜的。公共领域的概念在当时还不够陈腐，所以还很灵活。平均的版权条款大都在30年 左右，实际上也只有少数的创意性作品受到版权约束。这意味着大约平均30年内，创意作品的作者或者版权持有者具有控制作品如何使用的“排他性权利”。在有 限的方式下使用这种受版权约束的作品，也都要经过版权所有者的允许。

在版权有效期结束后，一个作品将进入公共领域（public domain)。在此作 品基础上改编或者使用作品本身都不再需要许可。没有许可也就因此无需律师。公共领域是一个“无律师领域”。因此大部分来自十九世纪的内容都可以让迪斯尼在 1928年自由使用和继续构造。对任何人也都可以使用和继续构造，无论他们是否有关联，也无论是否富有，或者是否经过了批准。

事情一直这样发展着，直到最近为止。在我们历史的大部分时间，公共领域（的概念)刚刚跃出地平线。从1790年到1978年，平均的版权有效期从来没有超过32年(译者注：中国的著作权法保护到著作权人逝世后第50年，英国是75年)，这意味着大部分的文化经过一代人或者一半时间就可以让任何人自由使用，不需要经过其他人的允许。同比来说，那些1960和1970年代的创意作品可以让下一个沃特·迪斯尼重新创造而无需得到允许。但是，今天的公共领域被假定为只能是在“大萧条”时期之前的内容。

当然，沃特迪斯尼并没有垄断“迪斯尼创造法”。美国也没有垄断。到今天为止，除了那些极权国家，自由文化的规则已经被广泛地采纳，四海皆宜。

举个例子，我们如果考虑一种被美国人看来很奇怪但是却对日本人司空见惯的文化：漫画(manga，日文)。日本人对漫画非常狂热。接近40%的出版物是漫画，同时有30%的出版收入来自于漫画。漫画在日本社会无处不在，在每种杂志上都有其位置，在日本那个无与伦比的交通体系中被大部分上班族所携带。

美国人可能会瞧不起这种文化。这是我们乏味的特质。我们可能会在很大程度上误解了漫画，因为只有少数人曾经阅读过这些“图片小说”所讲的故事。对日本人来说，漫画覆盖了社会生活的每个侧面。对我们来说，漫画就是罗宾汉(电影“men in tights”)。毕竟不像纽约地铁里面充斥着乔伊斯(Joyce)甚至海明威(Hemingway)的读者。来自不同文化的人们用不同的方式打发时间，日本人用一种不同的有趣方式而已。

但是我在这里并非要解读漫画。（因为）从律师的角度描述漫画的变化显然是非常奇怪的，但是从迪斯尼的角度来看就非常熟悉了。

这里要说的就是“同人志”(doujinshi，日文) 现象。“同人志”也是漫画，但是他们是一种模仿类的漫画。有丰富的道德规则统治者“同人志”的创作。如果只是简单的拷贝，那不是“同人志”；创作者必须对 他所拷贝的作品作出贡献，无论是作出细微的变动还是明显的变化。一个“同人志”漫画（作品）可以从取自一个主流漫画然后发展成为完全不同的形态，也会有不 同的故事主线。或者这些漫画可以保持角色的含义而只是轻微改变它的外观。没有任何公式约束使得这些漫画有足够“不同”。但是要想被当作是真正的“同人 志”，它们必须看上去不同。事实上，在一些展览会上收录的作品会有委员会作出评判，拒绝那些仅仅是拷贝的模仿作品。

这些模仿的漫画决不仅仅只是占有了漫画市场的一个小部分。它们的占有量十分巨大。在日本有超过33,000多个这样的“圈子”按照迪斯尼创造法进行 着大量的创作。有超过450,000日本人会每两年聚集一次，交换和销售他们的作品，并形成了这个国家最大的公共集会。这个市场和主流的漫画市场并存。在 某些方面，它还明显地与主流市场竞争，但是（反过来）并没有出现商业性漫画市场持续打压“同人志”的情况。它在那里繁荣成长，不管竞争和法律的存在。

最让那些受过专门训练的法律认识感到困惑的“同人志”特征就是它能够被允许生存。基于日本的版权法律，至少在纸面上与美国版权法律相似， “同人志”市场应当是非法的。“同人志”是明显的“派生作品”。没有实际情况表明“同人志”创作者获得了漫画创作者的许可。相反，真实的情况是简单地拿来 并修改别人的创作作品，这正如迪斯尼对“蒸汽船比尔号”的做法是一样的。无论是在日本法律或者是美国的法律都规定，在未获得原始版权所有者的允许情况下 “拿走”作品就是违法的。这种没有经过作品版权所有者的允许对作品进行复制或者制作派生作品，这样的行为都是属于对原创作品的一种侵犯。

然而这个非法的市场在日本不但生存而且繁荣昌盛，在大多数人看来，肯定是因为日本漫画市场繁荣而引起的。美国的图片小说家朱得·温尼克对我说：“早 期的美国漫画和日本的今天非常类似...这正是（艺术家）如何学习绘画的方式——钻进漫画书，不用描图而是看后模仿，然后在此基础上创造。”

温尼克说今天美国的漫画已经大不相同，部分是因为“同人志”的方式所碰到的法律困境。谈到超人，温尼克说有很多事情超人不能做：“因为有那些你必须要遵守的规则，作为一个创作者，对必须要遵循那些已经有五十岁的要素而感到沮丧。”

日本的规范缓和了这种法律困境。有人说正是漫画市场堆积的效益及解释了这种缓和。例如，坦普大学(Temple University)的法学教授赛立而·梅赫拉(Salil Mehra) 提出假设说，漫画市场接受了这些技术性的违规是因为它们刺激了漫画市场变得更兴旺和更高效。任何人都会因为“同人志”被禁止而有所损失，所以法律并不会禁 止“同人志”。

然而连梅赫拉也承认，这个故事所碰到的问题是这种机制所产生的自由反应并不清晰。如果整个市场从“同人志”被允许而不是被禁止中获利还说的过去，但 是不能解释为什么单个版权所有者并没有任何诉讼。如果法律对“同人志”没有一般性的例外，而且有一些漫画艺术家诉讼“同人志”作者的案例，那么为什么没有 阻止“同人志”文化这种“自由拿来”的更多模式出现？

我在日本度过四个月的美好时光，我尽可能地随时问这个问题。最终最好的解释大概算是来自于一个日本主要律师所的朋友，他在一天下午告诉我，“我们没有足够的律师，没有足够的资源来诉告这类案子。”

这就是我们要回到的一个主题：法律的条文既是成文的文字，也是让这些文字生效的市场代价。现在让我们集中于这些丐词问题：如果有更多律师日本是否会 获利更多？如果“同人志”作者大都受到起诉漫画市场是否会更丰富？如果中止这种没有补偿的分享日本人是否会获得更重要的东西？这里的盗版行为是否伤害了盗 版的受害者，或者是否帮助了他们？律师们对这种盗版行为作战是帮助了他们的客户还是伤害了他们？

咱们先暂停一会儿。
如果你像十年前的我，或者如今天很多人第一次开始思考这些问题，那么你很肯定会陷入你从前从未深入思考的困惑中。

我们生活在一个欢呼“财产权”的世界上。我也是其中一个欢呼者。我相信通常所说的财产权的价值，也相信律师们所说的另类财产权形式“知识产权”的价值。一个庞大多样的社会离开了财产权就无法存活；一个庞大多样的现代社会离开了知识产权也就无法繁荣。

但是让我们只花一秒钟来反思一下，会意识到还有很多价值无法用财产权来代表。我不是说“金钱不能购买你的爱情”，而指价值是生产过程的一部分价值， 包括商业生产，也包括非商业生产。如果迪斯尼的动画师用偷来的铅笔绘制“蒸汽船威利号”，我们会毫不犹豫地指责这种“拿来”是错误的，不管其是否微不足道 或者不被人注意。然而至少根据今天的法律，迪斯尼从巴斯特·基顿或者格林童话中的拿取却没有任何过错。因为从基顿那里拿取可以被人为是“合理使用”的，所 以没有过错。从格林兄弟那里拿取是因为他们的作品已经进入了公共领域，所以也没有过错。

因此，尽管这些事物被迪斯尼所拿取，或者更一般地说，被任何采用沃特·迪斯尼创造法的人所拿取都是有价值的，我们的传统并没有把这样的拿取视为过错。在自由文化中，一些事物保持自由拿取的状态，这样的自由是有好处的。

“同人志”文化是同样的道理。如果一个“同人志”艺术家闯入一个出版商的办公室，不支付任何费用而复制他最近的一千个作品拷贝，哪怕只是一个拷贝， 我们都会毫不犹豫地认为这个艺术家作了错事。除了有侵犯行为，他还偷盗了有价值的事物。法律禁止这种偷盗行为，无论采取何种方式，也无论大小。

然而即使是在日本的律师中间，如果让他们说那些复制漫画的艺术家是“偷盗”，也会有一个明显的迟疑。沃特·迪斯尼创造法的方式被视为公平和正确，即使是律师也发现很难说出来为什么。

一旦你开始观察，会发现成千上万的同样的例子。科学家在其他科学家的作品基础上进行创造而无需请求或者支付以获得特许。（“对不起，爱因斯坦教授， 我能否获得使用你的相对论的许可来证明你在量子物理学中的错误？”）表演公司表演着改编自莎士比亚的作品而没有从任何人那里获得许可。（有没有人相信如果 有一个集中的莎士比亚版权清算中心来保证所有的创作都必须申请会对传播更有好处？）好莱坞也不断重复着某些（雷同）类别的电影：在1990年代末期有五部 星球类别的电影；在1997年又两部火山灾难的电影。

这里的创作者，以及任何地方的创作者，总是在他们周围的以往创新基础上进行创作。这种创作总是在某些部分没有获得许可或者没有给原创者任何补偿。任 何一个社会，无论是自由的还是受控制的，从来没有要求每次使用需要支付或者为沃特·迪斯尼创造法寻觅许可。相反，任何一个社会都会保留一部分文化自由拿 取。对自由社会来说可能比非自由社会更彻底，但是所有的社会都会在一定程度上这样做。

因此最棘手的问题并不是一个文化是否是自由的。所有的文化都有某种程度的自由。所以棘手的问题便成了“这个文化有多么自由？”这个文化多大程度，或 者多大范围允许别人自由拿取和再创造？这种自由是否只限于政党成员？还是对皇族成员？对纽约证交所的前十名公司？或者这种自由是否广泛传播？对一般艺术 家，无论是否和大都会艺术博物馆有关联？对一般的音乐家，无论是否是白色音乐？对一般的电影制作人，无论是否属于某个影片工厂？

自由文化是更大程度开放给别人再创造；非自由或者许可方式的文化开放程度很低。我们过去的文化曾经是自由文化，但是今不如昔。

Chapter 1: Creators (创作者(简体)，Tranlsator: Isaac, Reviewers: Weijia
(創作者(中文繁體)，Tranlsator: JS)

---

Chapter 2: “Mere Copyists”

CHAPTER TWO:"Mere Copyists"
In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they were called "daguerreotypes." The process was complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals and a few zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre Association that helped regulate the industr y, as do all such associations, by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)
1839年，路易斯－达盖尔（Louis Daguerre）发明了制造我们今天称为“照片”(?摄影 photography)(photographs 是名词。 用“照片”比较合当) 的实用技术。当时以他的名字称为“达盖尔照片”（？达盖尔银板片,银版照相术 daguerreotypes.）。这种技术的过程复杂而且昂贵，因此此领域仅限于专业人员 (？专业人员)，非常热衷于其中的人，以及富有的爱好者。（当时还有一个美国银板照相协会，就像所有这样的协会一样，以管制该行业，抑制竞争以保证价格居 高不下）(以管制该行业以抑制竞争来保障价格高企)
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong. This pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make "automatic pictures." William Talbot soon discovered a process for making "negatives." But because the negatives were glass, and had to be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the 1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it was still not a process within reach of most amateurs.
尽管价格高昂，对银板照相的要求却依然强劲。这就促使发明家们寻找一个更简单和廉价的“自动照相”的方法。 William Talbot很快就发现了一个新的制作“底片”的方法。但是底片是玻璃的，而且必须保持潮湿，因此还是昂贵和麻烦。 十九世纪七十年代，干板的底片的研制，使得将拍照和底片冲洗的过程分离开变得更简单。(由于)因为仍然需要玻璃底片，所以这仍然是个大多数爱好者们难以参 与的方法。
The technological change that made mass photography possible didn't happen until 1888, and was the creation of a single man. George Eastman, himself an amateur photographer, was frustrated by the technology of photographs made with plates. In a flash of insight (so to speak), Eastman saw that if the film could be made to be flexible, it could be held on a single spindle. That roll could then be sent to a developer, driving the costs of photography down substantially. By lowering the costs, Eastman expected he could dramatically broaden the population of photographers.
一直到1888年，一次个人的创造改进了技术，让摄影终于大众化。作为业余摄影师(的)George Eastman，对摄影必须使用玻璃感光片十分不满。一次突然而至的灵感让Eastman设想如果底片能够变得柔软，就能够被卷上转轴。而一卷底片就能被 送到冲洗店里处理，使得摄影的成本大大降低。 Eastman预料降低成本将大大增加摄影者的数量。
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."1 As he described in The Kodak Primer:
Eastman开发了柔性的，带乳剂层的纸质底片，并将成卷的这样的底片放进小巧简单的被叫做“柯达”的照相机里。这个设备以它的简单为卖点被推上市场 (？)。正如Eastman在柯达的使用入门手册里所说，“你只需按快门，把剩下的交给我们”。
The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that any person whomsoever can do in making a photograph, from the work that only an expert can do....We furnish any- body, man, woman or child, who has sufficient intelligence to point a box straight and press a button, with an instrument which altogether removes from the practice of photography the neces- sity for exceptional facilities or, in fact, any special knowledge of the art. It can be employed without preliminary study, without a darkroom and without chemicals.2
柯达系统的原理是将摄影中任何人都能够做的工作与只有专家能做的工作分开...... 对不论男人，女人，还是孩子，任何有足够智力能端好一个盒子和按个按钮的人，我们提供了一个设备将他们从摄影所需要的特殊设施，实际上，任何特殊摄影艺术 技能分离开。不需要任何预先的学习，不需要暗房，也不需要化学药品，就能使用它。
For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded with film, and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an Eastman factory, where the film was developed. Over time, of course, the cost of the camera and the ease with which it could be used both improved. Roll film thus became the basis for the explosive growth of popular photography. Eastman's camera first went on sale in 1888; one year later, Kodak was printing more than six thousand negatives a day. From 1888 through 1909, while industrial production was rising by 4.7 percent, photographic equipment and material sales increased by 11 percent.3 Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced an average annual increase of over 17 percent.4
仅仅25美元，任何人都可以拍照了。这款相机购买时已经配备了胶卷，而且在使用后，可以送回到一个Eastman工厂，胶卷就能（yining: 我觉得这个“能”字可以省略 :) ）在那里冲洗。随着时间，相机的成本当然下降了，使用上也更方便了。胶卷因此成为摄影爆发流行起来的基础。 Eastman的相机在1888年开始销售，一年之后，柯达一天印出超过六千张的底片。从1888年到1909年，当工业生产提升了百分之四点七，摄影仪 器和材料的销售提高了11%(3) Eastman Kodak在这时期的平均年销售额提高了17%(4)
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places they would never other wise see. Amateur photogra- phy gave them the ability to record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As author Brian Coe notes, "For the first time the snapshot album provided the man on the street with a per- manent record of his family and its activities. ...For the first time in histor y there exists an authentic visual record of the appearance and ac- tivities of the common man made without [literary] interpretation or bias."5
然而，Eastman的发明真正意义不在于经济上，而在于社会意义。职业摄影让人们看 到了他们从来没有看到的地方。业余摄影让人们看到能够用以前无法做到的办法来记录自己的生活。就如作者Brian Coe所记录的， “第一次，相册让普通人们有了一个他们的家庭和活动的永久的记录...... 前所未有的，普通人的外表和活动有了一个真实的，没有文字解释和偏见的视觉记录。”
In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of ex- pression. The pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it took years of training before they could be deployed by amateurs in any useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at its "quality"; professionals would discount it as irrelevant. But watch a child study how best to frame a picture and you get a sense of the experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic tools gave ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any tools could have before.
在这个意义上，柯达相机和胶卷是一种用来表达的技术。铅笔和画笔当然也是用以表达的技术。但业余爱好者需要许多年的训练才能学会有成效地使用它们。 柯达的技术使得表达能够更快更简单。表达的障碍降低了。自视高的人或许会嘲笑它的“质量”；职业摄影者或许会不以为然。但看着一个孩子学习怎么拼好一幅 图，你就能体会到柯达所激活的创造力。民主化的工具(Democratic? 公平？民主 sounds better, but I am not sure whether it makes sense in simplified chinese )比任何工具能够更容易地让普通人去表达他们自己 (？它们的自我)。
What was required for this technology to flourish? Obviously, Eastman's genius was an important part. But also important was the le- gal environment within which Eastman's invention grew. For early in the history of photography, there was a series of judicial decisions that could well have changed the course of photography substantially. Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was no.6
这项技术需要什么才能茁壮成长？显然，Eastman的天才是很重要的部分。但另一重要部分是当时Eastman的发明能够成长的法律环境。因为在摄影史早期，有一系列的司法裁决(decision? 司法判决)原本可以极大地改变摄影的发展。业余或者职业的摄影师是否需要取得许可才能拍摄和印刷他所要的画面的问题曾被提交法院，法院的答案是不需要。
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly familiar. The photographer was "taking" something from the person or building whose photograph he shot--pirating something of value. Some even thought he was taking the target 's soul. Just as Disney was not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought valuable.
支持需要许可的论点将听起来令人惊奇地熟悉。摄影师是从被他拍摄的人或建筑“拿走”了一些东西 -- 掠夺走了一些有价值的东西。甚至有人认为他带走了被拍摄对象的灵魂。就像迪斯尼(Disney)不能自由地拿走他的动画制作者用来画米奇老鼠(Mickey)的铅笔一样，那些摄影师们不能自由地拍摄他们认为有价值的东西。
Review done up to here. To be continued. Anyone please feel free to continue. -Andrea
On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well. Sure, there may be something of value being used. But citizens should have the right to capture at least those images that stand in public view. (Louis Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought the rule should be different for images from private spaces.7) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from Steamboat Bill, Jr. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free to capture an image without compensating the source.
争论另一方的论点也该是熟悉的。的确，也许有些有价值的东西被用到了。但是公民应该有权力拍摄至少那些位于公众视野里的影像（Louis Brandeis，他后来成为高等法院法官，认为涉及私人空间的法规应该不一样7)。这也许意味着摄影师拍了一些没有意思(nothing?价值？)的东 西。正如迪斯尼从Steamboat Bill, Jr或者格林兄弟(Brothers Grimm)那里得到灵感，摄影师也该自由地拍摄影像而不必向原始出处支付费用。
Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these early decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no permission would be required before an image could be captured and shared with others. Instead, permission was presumed. Freedom was the default. (The law would eventually craft an exception for famous people: commercial photographers who snap pictures of famous people for commercial purposes have more restrictions than the rest of us. But in the ordinar case, the image can be captured without clearing the rights to do the capturing.8)
对Eastman先生和摄影的整体来说，幸运地，这些有利于盗版的（？pirate?）早期裁定。概括地说，不需要事前得到许可，照片可以拍摄和与 他人分享。 (?Instead? 怎么翻？）许可是(需要？）假定(presumed?)的。自由是被默认的。（法律最终还是将有名的人事做为了例外：以商业目的为名人拍照的商业摄影师要 比一般人受到更多的限制。但在普通案子里，拍摄影像不需要厘清(clearing?)版权。8）
We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer, then the photographer would have had to demonstrate permission. Perhaps Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the "theft " committed by the photographer. Just as Napster benefited from the copyright infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak would be benefiting from the "image-right " infringement of its photographers. We could imagine the law then requiring that some form of permission be demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could imagine a system developing to demonstrate that permission.
我们现在只能推测如果当初法律走了另外一条路，摄影将会如何发展。如果当初法律推定对摄影师不利(yining: 应该有合适的法律术语翻译， if the presumption had been against ....)，那么摄影师将不得不出示获得许可的证明(permission?)。也许Eastman Kodak也不得不在冲洗那些已经拍摄了影像的胶卷前出示获得许可的证明。毕竟，如果没有获得许可，Eastman Kodak就是从摄影师所犯的“盗窃罪”中获利。就像Napster从Napster用户对版权作品的侵权中获利一样，柯达就是从摄影师们对“图像权”所 犯的侵权中获利。我们可以想象法律就会要求一个公司在冲洗照片之前出示以许可的某种形式来证明获得了许可。我们可以想象一个要求出示许可的系统就会发展起 来。
But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography would have existed. It would have grown in importance over time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they did--since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology of expression would have been realized.
虽然我们能够想象这个许可系统，但如果对许可的要求被加进管制摄影的法律条文，我们就很难预想摄影如何能够繁荣发展(怎么翻译 as it did?)。摄影或许还能够存在。它的重要性或许还能够随着时间而发展。专业摄影师或许还能够继续使用这项技术(怎么翻译 as they did？)-- 因为职业性使得他们能够更容易地承受许可系统所附加的责任。但摄影在普通民众间的传播将不可能出现。那样的发展也不能实现。肯定地说，那样民主化的表达技 术的发展不可能实现。
If you drive through San Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted over with colorful and striking images, and the logo "Just Think!" in place of the name of a school. But there's little that's "just" cerebral in the projects that these busses enable. These buses are filled with technologies that teach kids to tinker with film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the film of your VCR. Rather the "film" of digital cameras. Just Think! is a project that en- ables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique the filmed culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children to learn something about media by doing something with media. By doing, they think. By tinkering, they learn.
如果你开车穿过旧金山(San Francisco)的（？Presidio怎么翻译？请熟悉这个地方的朋友帮忙），或许能够看到两辆艳黄色学校巴士，上面漆了各种颜色和醒目图案，在学 校的名字位置被有一个“去思考！”（怎么翻译这个“Just”？注意下面这句话里单独引用了“Just”，所以需要有个对应的翻译）的商标所代替。在这些 巴士上进行的项目里并没有太多“去”动脑的东西。这些巴士上装满了各种科技产品让孩子们学习操作拍摄。用的不是Eastman的胶片。也不是视频录像机的 胶带。而是数码摄像机的“胶片”。 “去思考！”是一个让孩子们学习拍摄电影，作为一种理解和批判围绕在他们身边的拍摄(filmed？）文化的项目。每年，这些巴士都要前往超过三十所学 校，让三百到五百名孩子通过做一些媒体相关的东西去学习一些关于媒体的东西。让他们在动手中思考。在实践中学习。
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, "Five years ago, a good real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get professional quality for $595."9 These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are learning more and more of something teachers call "media literacy."
这些巴士不便宜，但它们装载的科技不断变得便宜。高质量的数码视频系统的价格已经显著地下跌。如一个分析家所说，“五年前，一台好的实时视频编辑系 统的价格是两万五千美元。今天你能用五百九十五美元买到一台专业质量的系统。而且现在不仅仅是象这样的巴士是可行的，而且在全国的教室里，孩子们在学习越 来越多的被老师们称为“媒体文化素养”(Media Literacy???)
"Media literacy," as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just Think!, puts it, "is the ability ... to understand, analyze, and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the way media works, the way it 's constructed, the way it 's delivered, and the way people access it."
“媒体文化素养”，如“去思考！”的执行董事，Dave Yanofsky，所说，“是一种能力....去理解，分析，和解构媒体影像的能力。它的目的是（让孩子们）学会掌握媒体如何工作，如何构成，如何传递，和人们如何接受。”
This may seem like an odd way to think about " literacy." For most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway and noticing split infinitives are the things that " literate" people know about.
这或许看起来是个不寻常的关于“文化素养”的思考的方法。对大多数人，文化素养是关于读和写。福柯纳（Faulkner）和海明威(Heimingway)以及对不定式分割的注意，都是“有文化素养”的人所知道的东西。
Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials generally,10 it is increasingly important to understand the "grammar" of media. For just as there is a grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media.
也许（是这样的）。但是在一个儿童每年平均看390个小时的，或者总体上两万到4，5000个电视广告的世界里(10)，去了解这些媒体的“语法”就日益重要。因为就如书写的文字有语法一样，媒体也有语法。而且就像孩子们在写许许多多糟糕的散文中学习写作，他们通过搭造许许多多糟糕的（至少是刚开始的时候）媒体(?不好:(）学习媒体创作。
A growing field of academics and activists sees this form of literacy as crucial to the next generation of culture. For though anyone who has written understands how difficult writing is--how difficult it is to sequence the story, to keep a reader's attention, to craft language to be understandable--few of us have any real sense of how difficult media is. Or more fundamentally, few of us have a sense of how media works, how it holds an audience or leads it through a story, how it triggers emotion or builds suspense.
越来越多的学者和活动家看到这中形式的文化素质在下一代文化中的重要性。因为虽然每个用文字创作的人都知道学作有多难 -- 如何安排故事讲述的顺序，如何吸引读者的注意，如何推敲文字让作品更容易读懂 -- 我们中很少有人对媒体如何工作，如何抓住观众或用故事引导他们，如何触发感情或者制造悬念。
It took filmmaking a generation before it could do these things well. But even then, the knowledge was in the filming, not in writing about the film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not from reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then reflecting upon what one has written. One learns to write with images by making them and then reflecting upon what one has created.
电影界花了一代才将这些做好。即使如此，这些知识还是在拍摄之中，而不在关于影片的文字里。技能来自于制作影片的经验之中，而不是那些关于制作电影 的书籍里。人们在写作中以及其后对写成的作品的思考中学习写作。人们在制作影像以及其后对制成的作品的思考中学习制作(?Write with images?)影片。
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about "the placement of objects, color,...rhythm, pacing, and texture."11 But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction. But when he tried to design a computer game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not obvious, even to a wildly successful author.12
这个语法随着媒体的变化而变化。南加州大学的Annenberg（？）传播中心的执行董事和南加州大学电影电视学院(? School of Cinema-Television) 的院长(?Dean)，Elizabeth Daley，告诉我， 当还只是胶片的时候，语法就是关于“物件的摆设，颜色，......韵律，进度，和（物体表面的）质地手感。” 但是电脑呈现了一个互动的新天地，在那里，一个故事即可以被体验也可以“玩”（Play也可作表演，播放）的时候，语法就改变了。简单的对叙事的控制消失 了，因此其他技术就成为必需。作家Michael Crichton曾精通科幻小说的叙事手法。但当他试图去设计一个以他的小说为蓝本的电脑游戏，那就成了他不得不去学习的新的技巧，甚至对一个非常成功的 作家，比如如何在游戏中引导人们而让他们不明显地觉得被引导。
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes, "people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led." If you know you were led through a film, the film has failed.
这种技巧正是一个影片制作人要学习的。如Daley描述，“人们对自己是如何在影片里被引导的感到非常奇怪。它完美地被建构出来就是不让你了解，所 以你就不知道。如果一个影片制作者能够做到，你就不知道自己是怎么被引导的。”如果你知道在一部影片里自己如何被引导，那部电影就失败了。
Yet the push for an expanded literacy--one that goes beyond text to include audio and visual elements--is not about making better film di- rectors. The aim is not to improve the profession of filmmaking at all. Instead, as Daley explained,
但促进一个扩充了的文化素养 - 一个超越了文字包涵了音响和视觉元素的文化素养 - 不在于如何成为更好的电影导演。目标不是提高电影制作这个职业。相反的，Daley所解释的才是。
From my perspective, probably the most important digital divide is not access to a box. It 's the ability to be empowered with the language that that box works in. Otherwise only a very few people can write with this language, and all the rest of us are reduced to being read-only.
从我的角度看，最重要的数码分水岭大概不是能够使用电脑(box?)，而是能够发挥电脑的功能的能力。要不然，只有很少数的人能够用这种语言去写，其他人就退化为只读。
"Read-only." Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere. Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth centur y.
“只读”，别处产生的文化的被动接受者，“沙发土豆”，消费者，那是二十世纪的媒体世界。
The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better under- standing the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this literacy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate language for what they need to create or express."13 It is to enable students "to communicate in the language of the twenty-first century."14
二十一世纪会是不一样的。很关键的一点：媒体是可读也可写的。至少是读和对写的手段的更好的理解。最好的是，读和对那些能让写去引导和误导的工具的 理解。任何文化素养的目的，尤其是这个素养的目的，是“让人们能够根据他们所需要去创造或表达的去选择恰当的语言”，是让学生“用二十一世纪的语言去交 流”。
As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in written language. Daley and Stephanie Barish, director of the Institute for Multimedia Literacy at the Annenberg Center, describe one particularly poignant example of a project they ran in a high school. The high school was a very poor inner-city Los Angeles school. In all the traditional measures of success, this school was a failure. But Daley and Barish ran a program that gave kids an opportunity to use film to express meaning about something the students know something about--gun violence.
与任何语言一样，一些人比其他人更容易掌握这种语言。书面语言强的人未必就能更好地使用它。Daley和Annenberg中心 (Annenberg Center)多媒体文化学院(Institute for Multimedia Literacy)的主任（Director)Stephanie Barish，描述了一个他们在高中(high school)进行的一个项目中的记忆犹新(poignant??)的例子。那是个非常穷的洛杉矶(Los Angeles)的(inner-city?)学校。 在传统判定成功的标准上，这所学校是失败的。但Daley和Barish进行了一项活动，给孩子们一个机会使用电影来表达他们所了解的东西 － 枪械暴力 － 的意义。
The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively new problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was getting the kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them away. The "kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night," said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do what education should be about--learning how to express themselves.
课安排在每个星期五下午，这个学校带来了一个比较新的问题。大多数的课面对的挑战是让孩子们来上课，而这个课程的挑战却是让他们离开教室。“孩子们早上六点上学，下午五点放学”，Barish说。他们比其他任何班级都努力地学习教育所应关注的 － 学习如何去表达自己。
Using whatever "free web stuff they could find," and relatively simple tools to enable the kids to mix "image, sound, and text," Barish said this class produced a series of projects that showed something about gun violence that few would other wise understand. This was an issue close to the lives of these students. The project "gave them a tool and empowered them to be able to both understand it and talk about it," Barish explained. That tool succeeded in creating expression--far more successfully and powerfully than could have been created using only text. "If you had said to these students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their hands up and gone and done something else," Barish described, in part, no doubt, because expressing themselves in text is not something these students can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which these ideas can be expressed well. The power of this message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
用任何“他们能找到的网络上免费的东西”和相对简单的工具，让孩子们将“图像，声音，和文字”搭配起来。Barish说这个班级完成了一系列的项 目，将很少人能够理解的枪械暴力展示了出来。那是这些孩子生活中就发生在身边的问题。这个项目“给了他们一个工具，让他们能够理解和谈论（枪械暴力）” Barish解释说。 那个工具成功地让孩子们用远比只让他们用文字要更成功更有效地去表达。“如果对这些孩子说，‘你们必须用文字，’他们就会放弃而跑去做别的事情了” Barish说，无疑，部分上是因为用文字去表达他们自己不是这些学生们能够做地很好的事情。但是文字也并不是能够非常好地表达那些观点的形式。信息的力 量是依靠它与表达形式的联系。
"But isn't education about teaching kids to write?" I asked. In part, of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education, Daley explained, is about giving students a way of "constructing meaning." To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part--and increasingly, not the most powerful part--of constructing meaning. As Daley explained in the most moving part of our interview,
“但是教育不是要让孩子们学会写吗？”我问。当然，部分上，是的。但为什么我们教孩子们去写？教育，Daley解释说，是给学生们一个“创造含意” 的手段。这么去说写的意义就像说教育就是教孩子们拼写一样。文字是构成含意一部分，而且越来越不是最重要的部分。如Daley在我们的面谈中最感人的部分 所解释的，
What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all you give them is text, they 're not going to do it. Because they can't. You know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game, he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny comes to school and you say, "Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do mat- ters." Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or he [can] dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to dismiss you. [But i]nstead, if you say, " Well, with all these things that you can do, let 's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw for me something that reflects that." Not by giving a kid a video camera and ...saying, "Let 's go have fun with the video camera and make a little movie." But instead, really help you take these elements that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning about the topic. . . .
你所要的是给这些学生创造含意的方法。如果你给他们的是文字，他们不会去做。因为他们不能。你看，我们这的Johnny，他看录像，玩游戏机，他能 在你所有的墙上涂鸦，他能把你的车给拆散了，他能做许多其他事情。他就是不能读你的文字。所以当Johnny来上学，你说，“Johnny，你不识字，你 会的东西都不重要”。那好，Johnny就有两个选择：他可以对你不屑一顾或者自暴自弃。如果他有足够的自尊心，他会不理睬你。但是如果你说，“好吧，用 你所能的方法，让我们来讨论这个问题。演奏一段能够反应它的音乐，或者给我看看能够反应它的图像，或者图画。”不是给一个孩子一台录像机说“让我们一起去 玩玩这个录像机并拍一个小电影”。相反地，真正帮你用你所能理解的那些元素，你自己的语言，创造出关于这个话题有意义的东西......
That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually, as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact, "I need to explain this and I really need to write something." And as one of the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right.
这能给予极大的力量。而且最终在所有这些班级里发生的是他们都与事实较上劲了，“我要解释这个，我真的需要把一些东西写出来”。 其中的一个老师告诉Stephanie，他们要把一段话重写5，6，7，8次，直到把它写对为止。
Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come to understand that they had a lot of power with this language."
因为他们必须这么做。这么做是有理由的。他们需要说出一些事情，而不是按照要求按部就班地写八股文。 他们实际上需要用一个他们说地不是很好的语言。但他们已经开始理解了用这个语言能够够拥有很大的力量。
When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this news. Every moment of just about every day for that week, and for weeks after, television in particular, and media generally, retold the story of the events we had just witnessed. The telling was a retelling, because we had seen the events that were described. The genius of this awful act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was perfectly timed to assure that the whole world would be watching.
当两袈飞机撞进世贸中心，另一架撞进五角大楼，第四架撞进宾夕法尼亚的空地，全球所有的媒体都投向了这件新闻。那一周的几乎每天的每一刻，以及接下 去的好几周，尤其是电视，和大部分媒体，重复报道着我们都已经目击的这件事。这报道是重复报道，因为我们都已经看过了这件事。这件可恶的恐怖袭击的天才之 处在于第二次撞击的延迟做了精确的计时，保证全世界都能看到。
These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance," and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is tragedy.
这些重复的报道有一种越来越熟悉的感觉。间歇有音乐播放，有漂亮的图片闪过屏幕；采访有准则；有“平衡”与严肃性；新闻就是以我们越发期待的方式编排的。“新闻似娱乐”，即使当娱乐是悲剧的时候。
But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11," those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these Internet accounts had a ver y different flavor. Some people constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration. There were attempts to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news event that had captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
但在生产出来的关于911悲剧的新闻之外，我们之中系于网上的也看到了一个非常不同的产品。互联网上到处是关于这个事件的报导。但这些互联网上的报 导却有着不同的特色。有人建立了网页，把从世界各地收集来的照片放上去并做成有文字介绍的(slide show?)；有人写了公开信；有人做了录音记录；（网络上）有愤怒和沮丧；有人试图（给这件事）提供来龙去脉。简而言之，一个异乎寻常的全球的 (Barn Raising怎么翻译？） Mike Godwin曾经在他的书《Cyber Rights》里用（Barn Raising)来描述一个吸引了全球注意的新闻事件。在那里，有ABC和CBS，也有互联网。
I don't mean simply to praise the Internet--though I do think the people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student on the "Just Think!" bus, the visual images could be mixed with sound or text.
我不是打算要赞美互联网 － 虽然我认为支持这种言论形式的人们应该被赞扬。我想要指出的是这种言论形式的意义。就像柯达，互联网让人们能够获取图像；就像“去思考”的巴士上的一个学生做的影片，这些视觉图片能够与音响和文字一起被混合编辑。
But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet allows these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of people, practically instantaneously. This is something new in our tradition--not just that culture can be captured mechanically, and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely spread practically instantaneously.
但是与其它仅仅获取图像的技术不同，互联网能够让创作成果被非常多的人分享，简直就是立刻的。这是我们的传统中新的东西 － 不仅仅是文化可以被机械地捕捉到，而且明显地不仅是事件能够被批判性地评论，而且这种将获取得到的图像、声音、和评论的混合物（the mix of...???)，能够事实上瞬间被广泛传播。
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the same time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was just beginning to come into public consciousness: the Weblog, or blog. The blog is a kind of public diary, and within some cultures, such as in Japan, it functions very much like a diary. In those cultures, it records private facts in a public way--it 's a kind of electronic Jerry Springer, available anywhere in the world.
九月十一日（关于它的新闻制作和传播）不是一个偏差，它是一个开始。差不多在同一时候，人们开始认识了一个蓬勃成长的传播形式：网络博客，或者博 客。博客是一种公开日记，而且在一些文化里，比如日本，它几乎就是日记。在这些文化中，它以公开的方式记录个人私事 － 它像一种电子（Jerry Springer？？？），存在世界上的每个角落。
But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different character. There are some who use the space simply to talk about their private life. But there are many who use the space to engage in public discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions they make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at the same time and in which conversations are not necessarily linked. The best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point directly to words used by others, criticizing with or adding to them. They are arguably the most important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.
但是在美国，博客有了非常不同的特质。有人用这个空间完全去谈论自己的私人生活。但有很多人用这个空间去参与公众话语（discourse? 演讲?)。讨论(public import???)，评论其他在他们眼里犯了错误的人，批评政客们所做的决定，给我们看到的问题提出解决办法：博客创造了一个虚拟公共集会的观念，在这 里，我们根本不指望所有人在同一时间出现，而且交谈之间也没有必要相关。最好的博客内容（entry? 项？帖子？:-p）相对比较短，它们直接指向其他人写的文字，评论它们，或者把它们加入到自己的内容里。博客，可以说是我们所拥有未编排的公共话语的最重 要的形式。
That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy as it does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most difficult for those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy has atrophied. Of course we have elections, and most of the time the courts allow those elections to count. A relatively small number of people vote in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally professionalized and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
这是个很强的表述。它对民主的所说的和对博客的一样多。这是我们这些热爱美国的人最难以接受的美国的一部分：我们的民主已经枯萎。当然，我们有选 举，而且大多数的时候，法庭允许选举算数。相对少数的人们在选举中投票，选举的一整套形式已经变得完全职业化和按部就班。我们中的大多数认为这就是民主。
But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse. This was the idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the nineteenth-centur y French lawyer who wrote the most important account of early "Democracy in America." It wasn't popular elections that fascinated him--it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary people the right to choose life or death for other citizens. And most fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right " result; they tried to persuade each other of the "right " result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.15
但是民主从来就不是关于选举。民主意味着由人民来治理，但治理有着比简单的选举更多的意义。在我们的传统中，它也意味着通过理性的辩论来控制。这就 是 Alexis de Tocqueville，十九世纪法国律师，关于“美国的民主”的做了最重要的记录的人。不是受人欢迎的选举让他着迷，而是陪审团，一个给普通人决定他公 民生死的权力的机制。最让他着迷的是陪审团不仅仅是投票来做他们要做的决定，他们要经过审慎考虑。陪审团成员们为了“正确”（Right? 合适的？正义的？）的结果而争辩；他们为“正确”的结果而试图互相说服，而且至少在刑事案中，他们必须对结果达到一致的认同才能让整个（审判）过程结束。
Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place, there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are pushing to create just such an institution.16 And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
但甚至这个机制也在今天美国人生活中衰退。而且没有任何系统的努力让公民的审慎考虑成为可能。有人在推行创造这样的机制（16）。在新英格兰的一些 镇子里，一些接近审慎考虑的东西还存在着。但在大部分时间，对我们的大多数，“民主的审慎考虑”还没在什么地方或者某个时间发生过。
More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to occur. We, the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm against talking about politics. It 's fine to talk about politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.17 We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
更奇异的是，总体上没有让它发生的许可。我们，这个世界上最强大的民主国家，已经发展了一个强有力的不去讨论政治的普遍规范。和与你持相同意见的人 讨论政治没有问题。但与持不同意见的人讨论政治却是粗鲁的。政治讨论成了孤立的，而孤立的谈论变得更极端(17)。我们说朋友们想要听的，也听不到朋友们 说的以外的东西。
Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they want to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time. Technologies that enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever needing to gather in a single public place.
博客上场了。博客的独有的构架解决了部分问题。人们想发表的时候就发表，人们读的时候就去读。最难的时候是同步的时候（？？？）让异步通讯成为可能的技术，如电子邮件，让通讯的机会越来越多。博客让公共言论在公众们不需要在同意公众场合集合的时候成为可能。
But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of norms. There's no norm (yet) in blog space not to talk about politics. Indeed, the space is filled with political speech, on both the right and the left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian, but there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
超越构架，博客也解决了普遍规范的问题。在博客空间（还）没有不讨论政治的普遍规范。真的，这个空间充满了政治言论，有左翼也有右翼的。虽然最受欢 迎的站点是保守派的或者自由主义者的，但还有许多属于各种政治派别的。还有非政治性的博客在值得讨论的情况下也讨论政治问题。
The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The name Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race but for blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading is having an effect.
这些博客的重要性现在还很小，虽然不是那么小。如果不是博客，Howard Dean这个名字将在2004年总统参选竞赛中消失。即使他的博客的读者数量并不多，阅读博客本身产生了影响。
One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke" at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking" emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.18
一个直接的影响是报道在博客上有着与在主流媒体上不同的生存周期。 Trent Lott事件就是一个例子。当Lott在一次为参议员Strom Thurmond举行的派对(Party?这么翻译正式吗？)“口误”，实质上表扬Thurmond的隔离论者（segregationist？）的政 策。他准确地计算了关于这件事的报道将在48小时内从主流媒体中消失。的确如此。但是他没有料到它在博客空间的生存周期。博客们不断研究拷问这件事。随着 时间，越来越多同样的“口误”浮出水面。最后，这件事又回到了主流媒体。最终，Lott被迫从参议员的多数票的领先位置(majority leader?是否有专门的翻译？）上辞职。
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention. If they lose readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move on.
这不同的周期的原因可能是博客不像如其他企业那样存在同样的商业压力。电视和报纸具有商业性。它们必须做到吸引注意力。如果它们失去读者，就失去了收入。就像鲨鱼一样，它们必须不断移动。
But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting stor y, more and more people link to that story. And as the number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of stories. People read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a very democratic process of peer-generated rankings.
但博客们没有类似的限制。他们可以痴迷，可以专注，可以变得严肃。如果某个博客写了一篇非常有趣的报道(story?)，越来越多的人会联接到它的 链接。随着链接数目的增加，报道的排行也会上升。人们阅读受欢迎的东西；而什么受欢迎则是由一个非常民主的伙伴产生排行的程序来选择的。(Yining: tongue-twisting :-()
There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the absence of a financial "conflict of interest." "I think you have to take the conflict of interest " out of journalism, Winer told me. "An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of the way."
博客还有第二种不同于主流媒体的地方。如Dave Winer，博客运动的创始者(fathers of...?)之一和有几十年经验的软件作者，告诉我：另一个区别在于不存在经济上的“利益冲突”，“我认为你必开把利益冲突从（新闻业里）抛开” Winder对我说，“一个业余的新闻记者根本没有利益冲突，或者利益冲突是很容易被公开使得你可以差不多把它排除在外。”
These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public than an unconcentrated media can--as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own employees.19 It also needs to sustain a more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they told her that they were writing "the story.")
媒体变得愈加集中（等下会更多说到这个），这些冲突就变得愈加重要。一个集中的媒体可以比一个不集中的媒体将更多的东西隐藏起来 － 如CNN承认在伊拉克战争中它因为害怕自己的职员所受的后果所做的（19）它也需要维持前后更一致的报道。（在伊拉克战争中，我从互联网上读到一个当时正 在从卫星联线上收听在伊拉克的记者报道后发的公告。纽约总部当时一遍又一遍地告诉那个记者她的战地报道太黯淡惨痛：她必须提供一个更乐观的报道。当她告诉 纽约总部那是没有根据的，他们告诉她他们正在写“这篇报道”。
Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate--"amateur" not in the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to retell what they had seen.20 And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it "--with all the benefits, and costs, that might entail.
博客空间给了业余业者一个参与辩论的途径－－“业余”并不意味着缺乏经验，而是相对奥林匹克运动员水平的业余，就是说没人付钱给他们些报道。这使得 从一个宽广得多的范围里获得信息，如在对哥伦比亚号灾难的报道中所显露的，当时在美国西南部各州上百人在无联网上报道(retell?)他们所目睹的事件 (20)。而且这驱使读者在一系列的报道中去阅读和如Winer所说的，去“测量”(triangulate???)事实。博客，Winer说，是“与选 民直接交流，而中间人不存在了”-- 所有相关的受益和成本也都随之而去。
Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with blogs. "It 's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It 's not clear that "journalism" is happy about this--some journalists have been told to curtail their blogging.21 But it is clear that we are still in transition.
Winer对受到博客感染了的新闻业的将来表示乐观。对公众人物和逐渐地对私下的个人，“这将会成为一个基本的技能”，Winder预言。还不清楚“新闻界”是否对此感到高兴 － 一些记者被告知削减他们的博客（21）。但清楚的是我们还在过渡期间。
"A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, "we will be the last thing that gets shut down."
“我们现在做的许多都是热身运动，”Winer告诉我。在这个空间产生____(mature? 成熟的？）效果之前，有许多东西需要先成熟起来。而且因为对内容的包含在这个空间里是互联网上最不侵犯版权(copyright?)的使用。Winer 说，“我们将是最后一个被关掉(shutdown1?)的”
This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because "you don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper." That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be something extraordinary to report.
这言论影响民主。Winer认为所发生的是因为“你不必为控制的人，一个看门人，而工作”的确如此。但它也以另一种方式影响民主。当越来越多的公民 们表达他们所想的，用书写来捍卫它，这将改变人们理解公众事物的方式。 你的头脑容易犯错和被误导。你思考的产物更难被他人批评。 当然，人们承认他被说服了自己是错的是少见的。但更少见的是他会忽视自己被证明错误了。写出想法，论点，和批评促进了民主。今天大约有几百万的博客在进行 这样的书。当有一千万的时候，非比寻常的东西将被报道。
John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and ...the creation of knowledge ecologies for creating ... innovation."
John Seely Brown是施乐公司的首席科学家。他的工作，如他的网站所描述，是“人类学习和...对创新的知识生态的创造”（yining: yucky yucky!)
Brown thus looks at these technologies of digital creativity a bit differently from the perspectives I've sketched so far. I'm sure he would be excited about any technology that might improve democracy. But his real excitement comes from how these technologies affect learning.
因此Brown从与我到目前所描述的有些许不同的角度看待这些数字创新技术。我确信他会对任何促进民主的技术感到兴奋。但他真正的兴奋来自那些影响学习的技术。
As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When "a lot of us grew up," he explains, that tinkering was done "on motorcycle engines, lawnmower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on." But digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering--with abstract ideas though in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind of bricolage, or "free collage," as Brown calls it. Many get to add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
Brown相信，我们通过动手来学习。当“我们很多人长大”的时候，他解释说，这“摆弄”是在“摩托车的引擎，除草机的引擎，汽车，无线电收音机等 等”上。但是数字技术式的另一种“摆弄”－用抽象的思维和具体的形式。那些在“去思考！”活动中的孩子们不仅思考一个广告如何描绘一个政治人物，而且使用 数字技术，他们能够把广告解构并修改它，摆弄它，看它如何做到所要做的。数字技术引发了一种______(bricolage???)，或者如Brown 所称的“自由拼贴画”。许多人能够在别人所摆long之上增加和改变。
The best large-scale example of this kind of tinkering so far is free software or open-source software (FS/OSS). FS/OSS is software whose source code is shared. Anyone can download the technology that makes a FS/OSS program run. And anyone eager to learn how a particular bit of FS/OSS technology works can tinker with the code.
这种摆弄的最好的大规模的例子目前来说是自由软件或者开源软件(FS/OSS)。FS/OSS是指软件的源代码是分享的。任何人可以下载使得FS/OSS程序运行的技术。而且任何迫切想知道某个FS/OSS技术是如何工作的，可以摆弄它的源代码。
This opportunity creates a "completely new kind of learning platform," as Brown describes. "As soon as you start doing that, you . . . unleash a free collage on the community, so that other people can start looking at your code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing if they can improve it." Each effort is a kind of apprenticeship. "Open source becomes a major apprenticeship platform."
这个机会创造了一个，如Brown所描述的，“全新的学习平台”。“一旦你开始做，你向社区放开了一张自由拼贴图，其他人可以开始看你的代码，摆弄它，尝试它，看看他们能否改进它”。每个努力都是一种学徒关系。“源代码公开成了一个重要的学徒关系的平台”。
In this process, "the concrete things you tinker with are abstract. They are code." Kids are "shifting to the ability to tinker in the abstract, and this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that you're doing in your garage. You are tinkering with a community platform. . . . You are tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you tinker the more you improve." The more you improve, the more you learn.
在这个过程中，“你所摆弄的东西是抽象的，它们是（程序）代码”。孩子们在“转换到抽象地摆long的能力，而这种摆弄，不再是个孤立的在你自己的 车库里就能做的。你在与一个社区平台一起摆弄......你摆弄别人的东西，你摆弄地越多就越进步”。你进步地越多，你学到的也越多。
This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts it, "the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multi- ple forms of intelligence." Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word processors, helped amplify text. But the Web amplifies much more than text. " The Web ...says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if you are visual, if you are interested in film ... [then] there is a lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these multiple forms of intelligence."
同样的事情也发生在内容上。而且当内容是网络的一部分的时候，是以同样协作的方式发生的。如Brown所说的，“网络［是］第一个真正承诺多种信息 (intelligence? 才智？信息？）形式的媒体”。早期的技术如打字机和文字处理器，帮助扩展文本文字。但网络扩展了比文本文字还要多得多。“网络...说，如果你喜欢音乐， 喜爱艺术，喜欢视觉艺术，对电影感兴趣...[那么］那里有很多你在这个媒体上可以开始做的事情。现在［它］能扩展和承诺这些多种形式的信息。”
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as creates. It develops talents differently, and it builds a different kind of recognition.
Brown说的是Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, 和“去思考！”活动所教的：那就是文化上的摆弄不仅起到教育的作用而且也在创作。它用异于一般的方式发展才能，并建立了一种对才能的不同的认可。
Yet the freedom to tinker with these objects is not guaranteed. Indeed, as we' ll see through the course of this book, that freedom is increasingly highly contested. While there's no doubt that your father had the right to tinker with the car engine, there's great doubt that your child will have the right to tinker with the images she finds all around. The law and, increasingly, technology interfere with a freedom that technology, and curiosity, would other wise ensure.
然而摆弄这些东西（objects？）的自由不是能够得到保证。的确，如我们在本书中所看到的，这自由正越来越收到高度挑战(? contested?)。你的父亲当然有权利摆弄车子的引擎，但你的孩子是否有权去摆弄她所能找到的图片却有着极大的疑问。法律以及技术（越发地）干扰技 术和好奇心所能保证的自由。
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars. Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we' ll see more of in chap- ter 10) has developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.22 But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law.
这些限制已经成为研究者和学者们所注意的焦点。普林斯顿(Princeton)的教授Ed Felten（我们在第十章将看到关于他的更多东西）发展了一个强有力的争论（论点？argument）支持在计算机科学以及在知识的总体上的“摆弄的权 利”。(22) 但Brown的担心是更早，或者更不成熟（younger???)，或者更基本。这是关于到因为法律所决定孩子们能够学习，还是不能够学习。
" This is where education in the twenty-first centur y is going," Brown explains. We need to "understand how kids who grow up digital