[本篇全文] [回复本文] [本篇作者: nye17] [本篇人气: 58] 0
发信人: nye17 (有事找init), 信区: LinuxUnix
标 题: Richard Stallman评馒头血案(from sina)
发信站: 南京大学小百合站 (Sun Mar 26 01:25:27 2006)
美国院士关注馒头血案：我们动了陈凯歌的馒头
http://ent.sina.com.cn 2006年03月13日10:00 新浪娱乐
美国院士关注馒头血案：我们动了陈凯歌的馒头
Richard Stallman
新浪娱乐讯 仅仅是处于娱乐的目的，胡戈动了凯歌的馒头。虽然胡戈没有像皇帝的新
装里那个小孩说陈凯歌什么也没穿，但凯歌对此还是非常生气。我想，在凯歌生气，怒斥
胡戈“不能无耻到这样的地步”的一刻，也扎碎了自己的馒头碗。起初，我以为只有国人
在关注这个事情，直到有一天，我收到了Richard关于此事件的邮件，才意识到，在西方国
家，也有人关注此事。于是我就此事对Richard Stallman进行了专访，从法律和道德伦理
的角度探讨了我们能否动凯歌的馒头。下面是对话的全文。
徐继哲：最近，中国的网友都在讨论馒头血案，非常热闹。连你也知道了这个事情，
我感到有些意外，你是从哪得到了这个消息？为什么如此关注呢？
Richard Stallman：西方有报纸刊登了这个事情，我恰好看到了。他们认为这是一件
奇怪的事情，但我认为这件事情非常重要，主要有2点原因，首先，我很爱开玩笑，尤其喜
欢这类恶搞，因此当有人威胁要起诉这类事情时候，我感到非常气愤；其次，我一直都非
常关心过于严格的版权法对公众造成的伤害。
徐继哲：你看过《无极》或者《一个馒头引发的血案》么？更喜欢哪个？
Richard Stallman：我都没有看过，我从来不买DVD。为了对公众进行限制，DVD都以
加密的方式发行。他们以为无法写出能够播放DVD的自由软件，但是 Jon Johansen做到了
,但美国政府正审查这个软件。所以我只有2个选择，要么私下得到这个软件，要么抵制DV
D，(笔者注：Richard只使用自由软件)我更倾向于抵制DVD。电影公司一直都试图让版权法
变得更加严格，所以，我更不会花钱看他们的电影了。理论上，我可以通过P2P网络来获得
这两个片子，我也一直认为，P2P共享是符合道德伦理的，应该被合法化。美国电影协会一
定认为我是他们的敌人，或许他们正在找借口来起诉我。所以，我还是不看了，其实，除
了做飞机的时候，我几乎不看电影。我认为书籍是更好的朋友。
但是即使有人把破解的电影从门缝下面塞给我，我还是看不了，因为我不懂中文。将
来如果《馒头血案》有英文字幕，我还是想看看，我想我会喜欢它。但这并非关键，即使
没有看过这两个片子，也不妨碍我们在这里讨论的是道德伦理问题。道理很简单，人们有
权利做这类恶搞的事情，这是言论自由的重要组成部分。虽然目前美国在人权方面没有太
好的例子，但在一些具体的领域做的还是不错的。对于这类恶搞的行为，美国的版权法认
为这是“正常使用(fair use)”。在你想进行恶搞之前，无须向某些人获得许可，这是合
法的。
徐继哲：众所周知，你在1985年创立了自由软件基金会，启动了GNU项目，一直是自由
软件运动的精神领袖，很早就认识到了专有软件的危害。你鼓励人们互相分享软件的源代
码，让大家能够自由的学习、拷贝、修改和发行计算机软件。可否从这个角度谈谈你对艺
术创作的观点？软件开发和艺术创作有什么区别和联系？我们该如何鼓励自由和创新？
Richard Stallman：软件是一种讲究实际的艺术，写一个程序的目的不是让它看起来
好看，而是要完成某个具体的工作。这使得我们在从拷贝或者版权法的角度来看待计算机
软件的时候，处理方式要与其他事物有所不同。
对于计算机软件(以及像百科全书、教科书)这类实际使用的东西来说，每个人需要如
下4种基本自由：
1、运行软件的自由；
2、学习软件源代码，以及按照自己的意愿修改的自由；
3、拷贝的自由；
4、再次发行软件的自由；
如果你没有拥有这些自由，那么在你日常的活动中，你将失去对计算机的控制，事实
上，程序的开发者控制了你。
艺术工作则是另外一回事儿，它不是为了做某个具体的工作，它有自己的目的。因此
，我不认为人们有发行修改过的艺术作品的自由。但在使用艺术作品方面，人们应该拥有
如下2项基本自由：
1、出于非商业目的，完整分发拷贝的自由，比如：通过P2P网络共享；
2、为了创作另外一个从整体上完全不一样的作品，引用一个已经存在的作品的一部分
的自由；这就是Larry Lessig所说的“remix”，这是艺术发展的重要组成部分。
其中，第2点就包括了像《馒头血案》这类的恶搞。虽然我没有看过这2个片子，但我
认为，恶搞同严肃艺术一样，都是对社会的重要贡献。从这点来说，你会发现，我并非是
完全反对版权法，我不想完全废弃它。如果有人出于商业目的，发行了凯歌的电影，或者
利用《无极》做了一个与《无极》非常类似的东西，凯歌完全可以起诉他，或者向他收费
。版权法必须被设计成符合公众的利益，如果不尊重这些基本的自由，那就太严格了。
徐继哲：现在一些律师、专家认为胡戈侵犯了《无极》的版权，所以从法律的观点看
，如果胡戈被起诉，他们认为胡戈会败诉。但是绝大多数网友却支持胡戈，你如何看待这
一现象？
Richard Stallman：这说明为了更好地服务公众，尊重大家的权利，中国的版权法可
能需要修改，并且人们已经意识到这点了。像其他国家一样，中国应该抵制像WTO这样的组
织所带来的负面压力，毕竟，这些组织只是想抑制各个国家。
徐继哲：现在人们在谈论版权、专利、商标等问题的时候，经常使用“知识产权”这
一个词语来一语带过，在讨论馒头血案的时候，表现得也非常明显。我认为这是一个不好
的趋势，容易造成更大的混淆，你如何看待此问题？
Richard Stallman：说版权法和专利法就像说中国和印度一样，根本就是两个完全独
立的东西。如果再用此类比说商标法，就好比是亚美尼亚。设想，如果人们不再区分中国
、印度、亚美尼亚，而是统一说成亚洲，那么就会得到一个混合的错误印象，人们还以为
自己了解了亚洲。比如，人们会认为亚洲人(亚美尼亚)大多信仰基督教；大多数亚洲人(印
度)说印度语；用筷子吃饭(中国)。所以，最终人们得到了这个结论：亚洲人是说印度语、
用筷子吃饭的基督教徒。我很难想象会有这样的人存在。所以知识产权这个术语会让大家
陷入困惑。当一个人和你谈论知识产权的时候，要么他已经被迷惑了，要么他正试图迷惑
你。因此，我们要单独思考版权、专利、商标等问题，不要再使用知识产权这个词语。
徐继哲：你相对胡戈、凯歌以及中国的网友说点什么呢？
Richard Stallman：首先，我要恭喜胡戈这次非常成功的恶搞。希望胡戈不要就此道
歉，恶搞是对文化的贡献，没有人需要对此道歉。对于凯歌，我想说他应该学会自嘲。或
许我没有凯歌出名，但也经常有人通过画我的卡通图片来做这类恶搞，对此我感到非常有
趣，而且我还会给那些作者写信来交流这类事情。当然也有一些让我非常生气，我也会告
诉他们的作者，但是我从来没想过要起诉他们，我希望你也不要这样做。对于中国的网友
，我希望你们继续坚决地支持胡戈，这有助于帮助凯歌认识到什么才是正确的行为。
徐继哲：谢谢你的精彩观点。到现在为止，我也不知道胡戈是否已经被起诉。但我同
样希望凯歌能够学会自嘲，将来创作出更多的优秀电影。希望胡戈能够更加勇敢、冷静地
面对来自各方面的压力。从这件事情，我们再次看到：智慧在民间，公平在民间！
最后，谢谢Richard接受我的专访，希望将来我们能够有机会谈谈自由软件运动的一些
最新进展，比如GPLv3，谢谢！
Richard Stallman：好的，对此我充满期待！徐继哲
Richard Stallman简介
美国国家工程院院士, GNU工程以及自由软件基金会的创立者、著名黑客，自由软件运
动的精神领袖，为自由软件运动竖立了法律规范。如今自由软件已经在世界范围内产生了
深远的影响，在计算机工业、科学研究、教育等领域，显示出了极大的价值和生命力。
徐继哲简介：
自由软件运动倡导者，长期从事自由软件相关的开发工作。主要关注互联网、网络安
全、与IT相关的法律等领域，基于自由软件研发网络安全产品、互联网应用的同时，积极
倡导公司回馈自由软件社团。目前正在筹划建设一个综合的自由软件社区。
英文版访谈如下
Richard Stallman: We Touch Chen's Steamed Bread
by Bill Xu
Apparently, we touched Chen's steamed bread just for fun. Though Hu didn't
say that Chen has nothing on, Chen is very angry for this touch, and breaks h
is rice bow into pieces in person at the same time, it is very pity.
For this famous parody, I thought it just affects Chinese, but when I got
an email from Richard about this, I realized that someone western know this to
o. So I made an interview with Richard Stallman who is the founder of Free Sof
tware Foundation (
www.fsf.org), the GNU project (
www.gnu.org) and the academic
ian of NAE. We'll discuss this parody from the law and ethical point of view,
to tell the people whether we can touch Chen's steamed bread. From the dialogu
e, I can give a conclusion that Richard likes to eat Hu's steamed bread, just
like he always likes Chinese food. The following is the dialogue between Bill
Xu and Richard Stallman.
Bill Xu:
Recently, in China a famous incident was the discussion about a parody, Th
e Steamed Bread Murder Case, when I knew you cared it too, I feel a little ama
zed. Where did you get this news? And why did you care this?
Richard Stallman:
This story was covered in a Western newspaper that I read. The paper proba
bly regarded it as an oddity, but I think it is an important issue, for two re
asons. First of all, I love jokes, and especially parodies, so I am outraged w
hen someone threatens to censor them. Secondly, I'm always seriously concerned
about the harm done by unjust copyright laws that restrict the public.
Bill Xu:
Did you see the film The Promise and The Steamed Bread Murder Case? Which
one do you like more?
Richard Stallman:
I have no way to see either one of them. I never buy DVDs, because they ar
e published in an encrypted format specifically to restrict the public. It was
supposed to be impossible to write free software that could play a DVD, but J
on Johansen did it. Now that free software is censored in the US, and that giv
es me only two ethical options: to get it underground, or to boycott DVDs. I p
refer to boycott DVDs, because it makes a better point. Besides, since the mov
ie companies are at the forefront of trying to impose new restrictive copyrigh
t laws on the world, I'd rather not give them any of my money.
I could in theory get a copy via peer-to-peer networks to get copies of th
ese two videos. That would be ethical, in my view; peer-to-peer sharing is eth
ical and should be lawful. But I am sure that the MPAA thinks of me as an enem
y, and perhaps it is looking for an excuse to sue me. So in general I would ra
ther simply not see them. I rarely see movies, except on airplanes. Anyway, bo
oks are so much better.
But even if someone slid unencrypted copies of these movies under my door,
there would still be a problem: I don't speak Chinese. I could not understand
them without subtitles. If the Steamed Bread Murder Case has subtitles, I hop
e I will get to see it some day. I would probably enjoy it and laugh.But there
's nothing urgent about it. I don't have to have an aesthetic opinion about ei
ther the original or the parody in order to think about the ethical issue here
. The ethical issue is simple. People should have the right to make parodies o
f anything. That is an important part of freedom of expression.
The US is no great example nowadays of respect for human rights. But in on
e specific respect, US copyright law does the right thing. Parodies like this
one are legally considered "fair use". Courts have ruled that you don't need t
o get someone's permission before you make fun of him by parodying his work. I
t is lawful, pure and simple.
Bill Xu:
As we know, you are the founder of FSF, and launched the GNU project and G
PL, the spirit guru of free software movement, the first one that know the har
m of proprietary software. You encourage people to share the source code, and
study, copy, modify and redistribute the computer software. Could you please t
ell us how should we deal with the art invention from this point of view? How
do we hearten the freedom and invention? How do you think about the difference
and relation between software development and art invention?
Richard Stallman:
Software is a practical art; the purpose of writing a program is not mainl
y for it to look pretty, it is for the program to do a certain job. This makes
an important difference for issues of copying and copyright law.
Works of practical use, such as software, encyclopedias, and textbooks mus
t be free(ziyou, not mianfei): that means every user deserves four essential f
reedom:
0. The freedom to run the program (consult the work) as you wish.
1. The freedom to study the source code of the program (or other work) and
change it to do what you wish.
2. The freedom to make copies and distribute them to others.
3. The freedom to distribute or publish modified versions.
If you don't have these freedoms for the works that you use in your daily
activities, you can't control your activities--instead, the developer controls
you.
Works of art are a different issue: they are not meant to do practical job
s--art has a different kind of purpose. So I don't think that people should _i
n general_ have the freedom to publish modified versions of works of art. I'd
say that there are two essential freedoms that everyone should have, in using
art (and any kind of published works):
0. The freedom to redistribute exact copies noncommercially. (For instance
, through peer-to-peer sharing.)
1. The freedom to use parts of the work in making another work which _as a
whole_ is very different. This is what Larry Lessig refers to as "remix", and
it is an important part of the progress of art.
#1 includes making a parody such as the Steamed Bread Murder Case. Althoug
h I have not seen these two videos, in general I think that parodies are just
as important as contributions to art as "serious" works are.
From this response, you can see that I am not totally opposed to copyright
law; I do not want to abolish it completely. If someone else commercially dis
tributes Chen's film, or something quite similar to it, I think it is ok for C
hen to be able to sue and stop him, and/or collect money from him. But copyrig
ht law must be designed to serve the public good--to promote culture while res
pecting the essential freedoms of all. When it does not respect these essentia
l freedoms, then it is too restrictive.
Bill Xu:
Now some lawyers or experts think that Hu infracted Chen's copyright, so f
rom the law point of view, if Chen sues Hu, they think that Chen maybe win the
lawsuit. But the most of people support Hu, How do you think about this pheno
menon?
Richard Stallman:
It shows that Chinese copyright law might need to be changed in order to r
espect the rights and serve the interests of the people of China. And that the
people of China understand this. China, like other countries, must resist org
anizations such as the World Trade Organization, whose purpose is to subjugate
all countries.
Bill Xu:
Some people usually use the term "intellectual property" as a way of talki
ng about copyright, patent and trademark all together. What do you think about
this?
Richard Stallman:
Copyright law and patent law have about as much in common as China and Ind
ia. To treat them both together as a single subject is pure confusion--it's a
basic mistake that makes clear thinking impossible. Trademark law is even more
different--if we continue the above analogy, trademark law would be Armenia.
Imagine if everyone stopped using the names China, India, and Armenia, and
always said "Asia" instead. Everyone would learn a mixture of information abo
ut these three countries, and they would think they knew something about "Asia
". For example, many people would read that Asia (Armenia) is mostly Christian
; that most people in Asia (India) speak Hindi, and that people in Asia (China
) eat with chopsticks. They would believe that "Asia" is inhabited by Christia
ns that speak Hindi and eat with chopsticks. (I would be surprised to learn th
at even one such person really exists.)
Now imagine that everyone was confused in that way, so that there was nobo
dy who could clear up the confusion. That's how bad the confusion gets when pe
ople try to think about "intellectual property". Anyone who uses the term "int
ellectual property" is either confused, or trying to confuse you.
To think clearly about copyright, about patents, and about trademarks, you
need to think about them separately. The best way to help people think about
them separately is to reject the term "intellectual property" completely.
Bill Xu:
Do you want to say something to Hu, Chen and the Chinese netizens?
Richard Stallman:
First, I want to congratulate Mr Hu on his comedic success. I hope that so
meday one of my song parodies will be such a triumph. Second, I beg Mr Hu neve
r to apologize for what he has done. Publishing a parody is a contribution to
culture, and nobody should ever apologize for that.
To Mr Chen, I would like to say that you should learn to laugh at yourself
. I may not be as famous as you, but people have published cartoons making fun
of me. Most of them made me laugh, and I sent fan letters to their authors. A
few struck me as mean, and I told their authors so. But I have never even con
sidered suing people for making fun of me, and you should not do it either.
To Chinese netizens, please give Mr Hu your clear and strong support. This
will help show Mr Chen the right path.
Bill Xu:
Thank you for your wonderful point of view. I don't know whether Chen sue
Hu until now, but I wish Chen could learn to laugh at himself, and enjoy the p
arody, and give us more excellent films in the future. For Hu, I wish he could
continue to contribute more wonderful parody. Anyway, I think the constitutio
n can give a just judgment which will reflect the public opinion. Form this in
cident; we should agree that the wisdom and justice are always from the common
people.
Finally, I wish we can discuss something about free software movement, suc
h as GPLv3, in the future! Thank you!
Richard Stallman:
I look forward to it.
※ 来源:．南京大学小百合站
http://bbs.nju.edu.cn [FROM: 211.86.149.41]
