Hey, isn't the entire concept of Intellectual Property illegitimate?

嘿，智慧財產權的整體概念難道不是不合理的嗎？

I mean, how can we justify locking up the world of science and arts so corporations, publishing houses

我是說，我們怎麼可以將自然與藝術的世界整個封鎖，使公司、出版企業

and other gatekeepers can control what we know and what we think!

和其他的守門人可以控制我們的知識和意見！

Information wants to be free, man!

資訊渴望自由啊，兄弟！

Hey, me from the past! There's a Stan from the past! This is great!

嘿，過去的我耶！有一個過去的Stan耶！真棒！

Anyway. I can tell by looking at your vacant and bloodshot eyes that you've been up all night downloading Chumbawamba records over dialogue connection.

總之呢，從你空洞又布滿血絲的眼睛，我可以想見你整個晚上都在下載Chumbawamba(英國樂團)的專輯歌曲，

I remember those days and I remember you desperately trying to cling to any ethos that justified your rampant copyright infringement.

我還記得那些時候，我極度渴望歸屬於那種思潮：為自己猖獗的版權侵害作辯解的思潮。

That is if you ever participated in such activities. And even if you had participated in said infringing activities,

我是指，如果你曾經做過這樣的事。而如果你確實曾經做過這種侵犯別人的事，

the statute of limitations has likely run out. I don't even know what LimeWire is!

訴訟時效很可能已經過了。我連什麼是LimeWire都不知道！

I like how this is getting started, because Stan from the past raises some interesting points!

我蠻喜歡這樣的開頭，因為過去的Stan提出了很好的幾點！

There's a good chance that he, and a lot of you watching this video, might think

他，或者很多再看這支影片的你們，很有可能會想，

about aspects of Intellectual Property as outdated and pretty much irrelevant. Maybe

許多智慧財產的面向都已經過時，不然就是沒什麼關係了。

lots of you don't think of it at all!

再不然，你們很多人根本不會去想！

That line, "Information wants to be free", has been used to argue that current intellectual

這句話「資訊渴望自由」，往往用來爭辯現行的智慧財產權法令

properly laws are outdated, over-broad and generally awful.

已經過時，過於寬泛，且大部分立法不良。

The quotation is attributed to Stewart Brand and he said this to a group of computer programmers in 1984.

這句名言來自Stewart Brand，1984年，他對一群電腦工程師說了這句話。

"On the one hand Information wants to be expensive,

「一方面，資訊希望抬高自己的身價，

because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life.

因為它實在太有價值的。正確的資訊出現在正確的地方，可以扭轉你的人生。

On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is

另一方面，資訊又渴望自由，因為讓資訊自由的成本

getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."

隨著時間越來越低了。因此，這兩方面就產生了衝突。」

The full quote, which you hardly ever hear,

你可能沒聽過這段話，但是

actually spells out the major tension between intellectual property and technology quite well.

其實挺清楚的說明了智慧財產和科技間的緊張關係。

And it did it more than 30 years ago, when the digital age was just beginning. As information

而事實上在超過30年前，數位時代剛起步時，就已經存在這樣的現象。資訊

technology becomes more and more pervasive and important in our day-to-day lives in the information society

科技越來越廣泛，生活在資訊社會裡的我們，對資訊的依賴日益加深，

, information itself becomes exponentially more important and more valuable.

資訊本身的重要性和價值更以倍數增長著。

Paradoxically, as our information technology improves, and as our computers and connections

矛盾的是，隨著我們資訊科技的進步、電腦網絡的運算

get better and faster, and sharing becomes easier, we're less able to control the copying

更優質迅速、分享資訊也相對容易許多，對抄襲

and dissemination of this incredibly valuable information. The law of supply and demand

、散播這些極有價值資訊的情況，我們的掌握度卻降低了。供需法則

pushes down the information's value. This tension is nothing new.

貶低了資訊的價值。這窘境一點也不新奇。

Technology, especially in the context of copyright law, has always presented challenges.

科技，特別是在著作權法的領域裡，總是代表著挑戰。

Socrates's and Plato's 'Phaedrus' bemoaned the advent of books, arguing that they "will

蘇格拉底和柏拉圖的著作「菲德洛斯」為書本的出現哀悼，辯稱書本「會

implant forgetfulness in [human beings'] souls; they will cease to exercise memory because

將遺忘的習性深植在人類的靈魂中；人們將會停止運作記憶，因為

they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves,

他們將依賴白紙黑字，不再由自己深處取得、

but by means of external marks."

而是經由外界符號來喚回記憶。」

One way that humans have attempted to deal with these new technologies, with varying success , is by passing laws.

人們成功處理這些新科技的方法之一，便是透過立法。

The scourge of the piano roll was contemplated in the 1909 Copyright Act,

1909年的著作權法將鋼琴納入考量

the photocopier in 1976, and the Internet was covered in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

1976年的相片複印機和網路在1998年都被納入數位千禧著作權法。

But we're going to try to avoid this simplified intellectual property versus technology binary.

但對智慧財產權及二次元科技間的競爭，我們得嘗試避免過於簡化的討論。

The idea that we have to choose between devaluing the fruits of intellectual talent and labor,

這種要我們選擇不是貶低智財勞力、

or devaluing the revolutionary information sharing capacity of our networks, is wrong-headed.

就是貶低網路上革命性資訊分享能力的概念，是不對的。

The more interesting and more difficult question is how we can strike a balance; how we can

更有趣也更困難的問題是，我們如何取得平衡？我們如何

incentivize and promote this revolution in the way we share information, while at the

用分享資訊的方式，激勵、提升這樣的革新，同時也

same time incentivizing and promoting the production of creative works and inventions

激勵有創意的作品和發明不斷產生，

by having respect for the human beings that actually created them.

尊敬這些創造它們的人們？

The difference between today's debates and those that took place 100 years ago is that

時至今日的爭論與百年前相異之處在於，

intellectual property pervades our lives more and more every day.

智慧財產在我們的生活中日漸擴大瀰漫。

This is especially true for anyone viewing this video. I know that about 90% of you view

特別是任何正在觀看這支影片的人，我知道你們有90%都用

Crash Course in a web browser, so consider the layers of IP in this very YouTube page.

網路瀏覽器看Crash Course，從YouTube的IP位址就可以得知。

A lot of what you're looking at is covered by copyright. This video, for example, is

你觀看的影片大多數都有著作權保護。以這支影片為例，

covered as a motion picture work. The website itself is considered a literary work.

它是由動態的影像作品所呈現。而網站本身被歸納為文字作品。

The Thought Bubble, the theme song, and the video you watched right before this one, all

思想泡泡、主題曲、還有你在這部影片前看的影片，

have copyright protection. The software that streams the video is also a literary work.

全部都有著作權。播放影片的軟體也算是文字作品。

The web browser you're using is most likely registered as a computer program, as is the

你所使用的網路瀏覽器，最有可能登記為電腦程式，

operating system. Lest you Linux weirdos think that you don't have a copyright on your OS:

運作系統亦同。唯恐那些發明Linux的怪胎覺得自己的操作系統沒有著作權──

You do. You're just not enforcing it.

其實你有的。你只是沒有主張罷了。

Even your comments could be covered by copyright. That haiku you just posted:

甚至你的評論也有著作權。就連你剛剛發布的短句：

"Who is this person? What happened to Mr. Green?

「這傢伙是誰？格林先生跑去哪了？

Dislike. Unsubscribe."

不喜歡。取消訂閱。」

That's copyright-able!

這也是具有著作性質的！

When you agreed to this (image of YouTube user agreement), you granted YouTube a worldwide,

當你同意了這個(YouTube使用者同意書)，你已經給了YouTube一個全球性、

perpetual, non-exclusive license to use your content in any way they see fit.

永久且非排他性的許可，去以任何他們認為適當的方式使用你的評論。

There are also patents in play here. There's proprietary video streaming technology, and

專利也在其中扮演了重要角色。影片傳載技術所有權、

many of the components in your computer are patented.

還有你電腦裡其他眾多的元件都有專利。

But wait! There's more!

但等等！還有呢！

YouTube is a registered trademark, and if you saw an ad before this video, there was

YouTube是個經登記的商標，而如果你在這影片前看到了一支廣告，

most likely a trademark in there. This is a trademark

裡面非常有可能也有商標。這是一個商標，

and under this sticker is an image of a piece of fruit, also a trademark.

這貼紙下，有個水果(指蘋果電腦)，也是商標。

And behind the camera, our most precious and valuable mark, Mark Olsen. Mark Olsen, everybody!

而在這鏡頭後面，是我們最珍貴也最有價值的mark(商標，取同音)：Mark Olsen。各位！Mark Olsen！

The search algorithm that got you here? That's a trade secret. My appearance in this video,

把你帶來這的搜尋引擎計算呢？那是個商業秘密。我在這影片中的模樣，

and subsequent marketing of commemorative mugs with my likeness fixed on each one- that

還有隨後為了行銷而製造，每個都印上我圖樣的馬克杯，

implicates my right of publicity.

則關係到我個人的公開權。

If you're watching this on an iPhone or an Android, there's a whole other world of copyrights

如果你是用iPhone或安卓系統觀看這支影片，背後的應用更是有整個

and patents that apply.

關乎著作和專利的世界。

When you start to deconstruct it like this, it's dizzying. But despite all this complexity,

當你開始如此地解構它，會感到十分暈頭轉向。但儘管複雜，

most of the time the system moves along with a fluidity that sometimes makes it easy to

大部分時間，這體系隨著有時容易被遺忘的流動性

put it out of your mind. Kind of like the internal functioning of your digestive tract.

前進著。有點像是某些你消化系統部分的內部運作。

But it's there. Always there. Gurgling and churning and functioning. Did anybody order lunch?

但它就是在那兒，一直都在，咕嚕嚕地翻攪、運作著。有人訂午餐了嗎？

Now most of this fluidity and seamlessness is borne on the back of hundreds or thousands

而這些不著痕跡、理所當然運作著的一切，大多數是從數以百萬計的

of lawsuits, many of them against Google, thousands of pages of intricately complex

訴訟中孕育而生；這些訴訟多半針對Google、千百頁紛雜的

contracts, and hundreds of millions of take down notices.

契約、以及數百萬則移除通知。

The point is that none of us, or very few of us, can go about our daily lives without

重點是，我們之中沒有任何人，或者，任何人都可能可以在不受

being impacted by intellectual property. It's only when it hits home, like when you receive

智慧財產任何影響下照常度日。總是要等到這些事對你侵門踏戶了，比如你因為開設

a cease-and-desist letter from a trademark attorney for opening a restaurant called Burger Queen,

「漢堡后」餐廳，而收到一封來自商標法律事務所的、要求「停用」的律師函，

or digital rights management software stops you from listening to your iTunes downloads on your Zune.

或者數位版權管理軟體阻止你繼續用播放器聽從iTunes下載來的曲目。

Maybe your YouTube video gets taken down because of that T-Swizzie song in the background (that's

或許你的YouTube影片因為用T-Swizzie的歌當背景音樂而遭到移除

what the kids call Taylor Swift).

(那是屁孩用來對泰勒絲的暱稱)。

Maybe you get a letter from your internet service provider, informing you that someone

也或許你從你的網路提供業者那收到一封信，提醒你有人

using your account has downloaded every episode of Game of Thrones and that if it keeps up

用你的帳號下載了每一集的「冰與火之歌：權力遊戲」，而且如果沒有停止的話，

you may be fined or imprisoned- or beheaded! That's when it flares up.

你很有可能遭裁罰、或逮捕、或被殺頭！星火燎原的話就是這樣啦。

Flare up! God, are we still on the digestive tract metaphor? Somebody get me a Tums. Tums,

星火燎原！天哪，我們還在用比喻喔？有人拿個Tums(抗酸消化劑品牌)給我吧。Tums，

by the way, registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.

喔對了，登記為葛蘭素史克股份有限公司的商標。

Most of us encounter IP only on its borders. We hear horror stories about the motion picture

我們大多數人只會從側面了解智財。我們耳聞電影

and recording industry suing grandmothers. We watch those unskippable FBI messages warning

和唱片行業向老奶奶們提告的故事。我們眼見那些聯邦探員發來不可忽略的訊息，

us about the consequences of copyright infringement, or we complain about paying thousands of dollars

警告我們侵害著作權的可能後果，又或者我們會抱怨，

per pill for medicine.

為那極少量的藥劑支付大筆花費。

We tend to encounter intellectual property law in places where we, as users, are basically

我們更容易在那些身為使用者、而被告知「不可以這樣做」時，才會面對到智慧財產權。

being told 'no'. And being told 'no' over and over again is irritating, especially when

不斷地被禁止、說「不可以這樣做」，是很惱人的，特別是當

these "no's" don't seem to make any sense. And they're really irritating when they come

這些「不可以」似乎一點道理都沒有。而當它們包含

with threats of fines or imprisonment.

罰款及坐牢的威脅時，就更加惱人。

So in this course we're going to focus less on enforcement and the "no's" and more on

因此，在這個課程裡，我們會比較少專注於那些強制、「不可以」

the part of intellectual property that often says 'yes', 'sometimes', 'maybe', 'it is certain',

並且多從「可以」、「有時」、「可能」、「可以確定地」

or even 'ask again later'.

或甚至是「稍後詢問」等面向來談智慧財產權。

I'm speaking, of course, of the "Liquid filled die agitator containing a die having raised indicia on the facets thereof",

我在說的當然是指，「某面含有一凸起標誌之液體注入的骰狀攪拌模型」，

registered as patent US 3119621, which you might know as the Magic 8-Ball.

登記為美國的3119621號專利，就是你可能知道的「神奇八號球」。

Before we get too far, we should probably define intellectual property. This is going

在我們深談以前，得先定義智慧財產。這會

to get pretty abstract, so let's go to the Thought Bubble.

有點抽象，所以我們請思考泡泡出來一下吧。

The theoretical definition of intellectual property would begin by saying that it is:

智慧財產權在學理上的定義，可以這麼開始：

"Nonphysical property that stems from, is identified as, and whose value is based on

「以非物理性質的財產為本質，並且從一或多個思考、發想上

an idea or some ideas."

建構它的身分及價值。」

There has to be some element of novelty; the thing that we describe as intellectual property

它必須要有某程度的創新；我們所說的智慧財產權

can't be commonplace, or generally known, in the society where it's created, at the

不能是常識，或它在社會上被創造、成為財產時，

time that it becomes property. You can't claim that you invented the wheel or that you wrote Moby Dick.

不能夠已經為公眾所周知。你不能聲稱你發明了輪胎，或你寫了白鯨記。

Even though the source material for all IP is social -- the inputs are our education, our

即便所有智財的資源都來自於社會──我們教育的輸入、我們

human interactions, and basically all the sensory data around us that we take in -- the

人類的互動、且基本上所有微繞我們吸收的感官訊息──

thing that we call 'IP' is the product of us putting together all these social inputs

所謂的「智財」，是將所有我們接收的社會訊息，統合而成的產物，

into something that we're gonna call "the idea".

成為一種我們叫作「發想」的東西。

"Only the concrete, tangible, or physical embodiments of the idea are protected by intellectual property law."

「只有實體的、有形的、或經過具體化的發想才會受到智慧財產權法的保障。」

The idea has to be fixed into a form and location in which humans have access to it. That could

這個發想必須要被製作成一種固定形態、且放置在人們可以取得的地方。它可以是

be a novel, or a logo, or a liquid filled die agitator containing a die having raised indicia on the facets thereof.

一本小說、一個商標、或者某面含有一凸起標誌之液體注入的骰狀攪拌模型。

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

謝啦，思想泡泡，

So in its purest and best form, IP is the propertization of intellectual effort and talent.

所以，智財最純粹、良好的形式，便是努力和天分的產物。

In its most corrupt and worst form, intellectual property can be, and has been

但最腐敗、最糟形式的智慧財產，可以是、或曾經是

used by the propertied and powerful to protect concentrated markets and broken business models.

資產階級和權力核心，用來袒護集中市場、破敗的工商模式的一種手段。

At its very worst, it can be used a censorship tool.

而最糟的，便是用來審核的工具。

Intellectual property differs somewhat from real property like cars or houses because

智慧財產某種程度，和車、房這樣的實體財產是不太一樣的，

it's limited in duration and scope. For example, copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years.

原因來自於它持久性及範圍的限制。例如，著作權的永續期間是作者生命期間再加上死後70年。

Copyrighted works can be copied under the fair use exception for certain personal or

著作權作品可以為了特定的私人或公共利益而例外地在

publicly beneficial uses. Let's say a book reviewer quotes long passages of a novel,

合理範圍內被複製。舉個例，有個書評引用了某小說中的長篇，

then pans the book. It's likely the author of the book wouldn't grant permission for

並從中獲利。原書作者很有可能不願授權

this type of use. But we want to encourage informed public discourse. So there's a good

給這樣形式的使用。但我們希望可以鼓勵大眾知的論辯，所以這很可能

chance it would be found to be a fair use.

被認定屬於合理使用的範疇。

Patent laws carved out a limited experimental use exception that permits minimal use of

專利法中例外地敘明，為滿足娛樂、想像及好奇心、或嚴謹的哲學需求，

a patent for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry. Again,

允許在實驗性質上，對專利最小的合理使用。同樣地，

the patent owner probably wouldn't like this, but the law wants to encourage individual tinkering.

專利所有權人一定不能認同，但法律希望能激發個人的能力再造。

Both these limitations exist to serve the primary objective of intellectual property:

這兩項限制，都是為了智慧財產權最主要的目的而存在：

that's to promote the progress of science and useful arts by increasing our stock of knowledge.

擴增我們的知識存量，以促進科學及實用藝術的進步。

So in this series, we're going to focus on the 3 main branches of intellectual property:

所以在這個系列裡，我們將會專注在智慧財產權三個主要的分類上：

copyrights, patents, and trademarks. We won't have time to get into some of the lesser cousins of the family

著作權、專利權及商標權。我們沒有時間去細究其他這個系統中的分類，

like trade secrets or the right of publicity, but all of these are included

比如商業機密或公開權，但它們全都包含在

under the umbrella of intellectual property.

智慧財產權撐起的保護傘下。

So in the coming weeks we're going to try to get at some of the nuts and bolt of what intellectual property is,

因此在接下來的幾週，我們會試著從具體面象來了解智慧財產權。

because like it or not, IP is only going to become more and

因為不管你喜不喜歡它，智慧財產權將會因為

more relevant as our lives become more and more digital.

我們生活的日漸數位化而越發盛行。

So regardless of what or how you feel about any aspect of IP, it's probably a good idea

所以姑且不論你從任何面向、怎麼認定智財，建構一些基礎知識

to have some basic knowledge of it. It doesn't matter if you're a consumer or a creator of protected content or both

應該是個好主意。而你究竟是受保護內容的消費者、創作者、或二者皆是，並不重要。

. Is understanding IP going to help you?

了解智財真的會幫助你嗎？

You may rely on it. See you next week.

你會需要它的。下週見了。

Crash Course: Intellectual Property is filmed

Crash Course：智慧財產權篇是在

in the Chad and Stacey Emigholz studio here in sunny Indianapolis, Indiana, and

查德及史黛西耶米格茲的影棚拍攝，位在陽光普照的印第安納州的印第安納波利茲，

it's made with the help of all of these nice workers for hire.

且由這裡所有可愛的工作夥伴們協助製作。

If you'd like to help us make Crash Course in a monetary way that doesn't imply any ownership in the final work,

若您想以資金助我們製作Crash Course，並不對成品聲明任何所有權，

you can subscribe at Patreon, a voluntary subscription service where you can support

您可以到Patreon(一個以志願性質為支持的捐款服務)上捐獻給Crash Course

CrashCourse and help make it free for everyone forever. You can get great perks,

並讓它永遠對任何人不必收費。您會獲得一些回饋，

but the greatest perk of all is the satisfaction of spreading knowledge. Right? So thanks for watching.

但最棒的回饋就是廣播知識的滿足了，您說是吧？那就感謝您的收看了。

We'll see you next week.

我們下週見。