not-ipr.html - en to zh_TW translation catalogue (36 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;? It's a Seductive Mirage - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_TW: 還在說「智慧財產權嗎」嗎？它只是海市蜃樓 - GNU 專案 - 自由軟體基金會

note: type: Content of: <h2>
en: Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;? It's a Seductive Mirage
zh_TW: 還在說「智慧財產權嗎」嗎？它只是海市蜃樓

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a>
zh_TW: 作者為 <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a>

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.  Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it.  The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
zh_TW: 現在很流行把版權、專利與商標這三個本來是獨立且完全不同的概念一股腦兒全放在一起，而這三個概念又分別涉及了不同的法律條文，還加上了一些雜七雜八的法律，稱之為「智慧財產權」。如此扭曲概念又具誤導性的詞彙如今成了時尚。而這股流行可不是純屬偶然，背後有許多公司就是靠這種扭曲與誤導來牟利。它們對這一概念的推廣可說是不遺餘力。想要徹底理清思緒，解決疑惑，我們必須先摒棄這個術語。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo; Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">around 1990</a>. (<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">Local image copy</a>)
zh_TW: 根據任職於史丹佛大學法學院的 Mark Lemley 教授表示，「智慧財產權」一詞廣泛使用是從1967年世界「智慧財產權」(WIPO) 組織成立之後才開始，而最近幾年對這個詞的使用則愈來愈頻繁。（世界智慧財產權組織從屬於聯合國，但實際上是代表版權、專利與商標持有者的利益。）大量使用則約從<a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">1990年左右開始</a>。（<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">本地圖片副本</a>）

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so.  Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
zh_TW: 這個詞所帶有的偏見是顯而易見的：它暗示人們使用類比的方式考慮著作權法、專利法與商標法，將這些法律類比為針對實物的產權法規。（這種類比在法理上與著作權法、專利法與商標法並不一致，但往往只有專家能發現。）這些法律實際上並不像產權法，但使用了「財產權」這個詞則常常引導立法者們曲解其本意。而這種曲解正好是那些擁有各種版權、專利與商標的公司所期望的。由「財產權」一詞所帶來的偏見，正好符合了他們的心意。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous).  Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies.  Some speak of &ldquo;exclusive rights regimes&rdquo;, but referring to restrictions as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
zh_TW: 如此的偏見給了我們足夠的理由來摒棄這個詞，很多人也曾提議叫我為這類東西取個適合的名字，或者是他們也會提出自己的解決方案（雖然多半是開玩笑）。這些建議包含了：強行壟斷特權(Imposed Monopoly Privileges, IMP)、政策性合法強制壟斷 (Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies, GOLEM)。還有人建議「排他性權利制度」(exclusive rights regimes)，不過要限制稱為「權利」，那就必須來個雙重思考了。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;it is a mirage.  The only reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled them about the laws in question.
zh_TW: 這些替代詞語和原本的詞比起來通常都有不小的改進，不過不管把「智慧財產權」這個詞換成什麼都是錯誤的。單純換一個詞並不能解決更深層的問題：過度概括。這世上根本就沒有這類統合在一起，稱為「智慧財產權」的東西，那就是個海市蜃樓。人們之所以認為版權、專利與商標是一個連貫的整題，是因為這個詞的廣泛使用導致了對相關法律的誤解。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws.  Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
zh_TW: 「智慧財產權」這個詞充其量只是把把不同的法律混為一談，然後弄出個大雜燴。當非法律專家看到這麼樣的一個詞時，它們會傾向於認為這些法律是基於同樣的原則，並且有類似的功能。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Nothing could be further from the case.  These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
zh_TW: 如此影響不可不謂深遠。但其實這些法律都是各自獨立產生的，有著不同的發展軌跡，管轄不同的行為，基於不同的原則，並且提出不同的公共政策問題。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work.  Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it&mdash;a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
zh_TW: 舉例來說，著作權法規旨在推動創作與藝術，其涵蓋了作品的所有細節。專利法規則在推動實用創意的釋出，透過在一定的時間內，賦予創意發想者對該創意的壟斷權，來達到這個目的，這個壟斷權也許在某些領域中是值得給的，但絕非所有領域都是如此。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying.  Legislators under the influence of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.  And these are just three out of many laws that the term refers to.
zh_TW: 相較之下，商標法並未推動什麼特殊的活動，它只是讓消費者知道自己買了什麼。而立法者們因為被「智慧財產權」這個詞影響，認為商標法是用來推動廣告宣傳的。這些還只是這個詞所涉及的眾多法律中的三個而已。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods.  Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that patent law is different.  You'll rarely go wrong!
zh_TW: 因為這些法律都是各自獨立發展起來的，因此它們在各個細節上都有所不同，在它們的根本目的與方法上也有所不同。因此，如果你知道一些關於著作權法規的知識，足夠將其與專利法規分開來，那你就很少會犯錯了。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are formulated using &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; will be false.  For instance, you'll see claims that &ldquo;its&rdquo; purpose is to &ldquo;promote innovation&rdquo;, but that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies.  Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it.  Trademark law is not concerned with innovation; if I start a tea store and call it &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo;, that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the same way as everyone else.  Trade secret law is not concerned with innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.
zh_TW: 實際上，幾乎所有你看到關於「智慧財產權」的一般性陳述都是錯的。舉例來說，你會看到「該詞」的目的是「推動創新」的說法，但創新權只適用於專利法規，或許還適用於植物品種壟斷法。著作權法規則完全與創新無關；即使沒有任何創新的元素，流行歌與小說也受著作權保護。商標法也與創新無關；如果我開了一間叫 &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo; 的茶店，即便我用相同的方式與其他店家賣相同的茶，這個名字依然是商標。商業機密法也無關乎創新，頂多只能算是沾到邊；我的茶店客戶名單也算商業機密，但這和創新毫無關係。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: You will also see assertions that &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is concerned with &ldquo;creativity&rdquo;, but really that only fits copyright law.  More than creativity is needed to make a patentable invention.  Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with creativity; the name &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo; isn't creative at all, and neither is my secret list of tea customers.
zh_TW: 你還會看到「智慧財產權」與「創造力」有關的說法，但實際上創造力只跟著作權法規有關。專利發明要求的不只有創造力。商標法與商業機密法則與創造力無關；&ldquo;rms tea&rdquo; 這個名字根本不需要創造力，我的茶店客戶名單也不需要創造力。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; when they really mean some larger or smaller set of laws.  For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them.  Some of these laws are among those called &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them.  By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue.  It would be better to use an accurate term, such as &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that gets to the heart of the matter.
zh_TW: 人們說「智慧財產權」的時候，通常是指一些其他較大或較小的法律。舉例來說，一些較為富有的國家常會對較貧窮的國家強加一些不平等的法律，從中榨取利益。其中有些就是所謂的「智慧財產權」法律，有些則不是。可是批評者總是喜歡拿著「智慧財產權」的標籤到處亂貼，因為他們比較熟悉這些內容。在使用的過程中，他們往往錯誤地解讀這些問題的本質。這時候就需要一些更精確的詞，如「法律殖民」，這才算是點到問題的核心。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term.  Even law professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the seductiveness of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, and make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For example, one professor wrote in 2006:
zh_TW: 並不是只有外行人才會被這個詞騙得團團轉。就是是教這些法律的法律系教授也會被這個詞搞得頭昏腦脹，然後作出一些與他們所知事實相衝突的陳述。舉例來說，有個教授在2006年寫道：

note: type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
en: Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to intellectual property.  They knew rights might be necessary, but&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in multiple ways.
zh_TW: 當年美國憲法的起草者們，雖然他們沒辦法坐在 WIPO 的大廈中，但對於智慧財產權，他們有著堅定且前瞻的態度。他們知道（賦予創作者）一定的權利是必須的，但……他們卻透過憲法綁住國會的雙手，以多種方式限制其權力。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law.  That clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret law, or various others.  The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that professor to make a false generalization.
zh_TW: 這個限制指的是美國憲法第一條第八款第八節中的陳述。本條款授權著作權法與專利法。不過憲法中的這一款可沒提到商標法、商業機密法或其他東西。而這位教授使用了「智慧財產權」這個詞，錯誤地概括了太多東西。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial privileges for certain parties&mdash;and to disregard the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the consequences that result.  This simplistic focus on the form encourages an &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all these issues.
zh_TW: 「智慧財產權」這個詞也導致了思維過度簡化。它引導人們把精力都集中在這些不同的法律條文之間僅有的那麼一點共通性上，它們都需要人為地為某人創造一些特權，進而讓人們忽視：每一組不同的法律對於大眾有不同的約束與後果。單純把精力集中在形式上，造就了一種分析這類問題的「經濟學」方法。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined assumptions.  These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving research.
zh_TW: 經濟學在這裡開始發揮作用了，它再一次被人們挾持，依然被用於一些未經檢驗的前提假設上。這些假設包含了一系列的價值觀，例如：產品數量才是重點，自由與生活方式都可以被忽視；還有一些對事實的錯誤判斷，比如說：認為對音樂作品的著作權保護可以保護並支持音樂家；或是認為對藥品專利的保護可以促進醫藥領域的研究。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; encourages people to ignore.  For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law has nothing to do with this.  Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.
zh_TW: 另一個問題是，由於「智慧財產權」這個詞過於空泛，從而使特定法律所針對的問題變得模糊。這些問題分屬不同法律，而「智慧財產權」這個詞正是用來鼓勵人們忽視其中的不同。舉例來說，其中一個與著作權法規相關的問題：分享音樂本身是否該被禁止；專利法則完全不會涉及到這類的問題。但專利法倒是會涉及到另外的問題，例如是否應該允許貧困國家生產攸關性命的藥物，並以低價出售來救人一命；而這又與著作權法無關了。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the differences.  Putting the two laws in the &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
zh_TW: 這些問題都不只是單純的經濟問題，而它們非經濟的一面則各有不同。膚淺地用經濟學理論作為基礎對它們進行過度概括，代表無視它們的不同。把這兩套法律放在「智慧財產權」這個大鍋裡亂攪一通，只是讓人們對於這兩套法律的概念愈來愈模糊。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual property&rdquo; and any generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish.  If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
zh_TW: 因此，任何所謂的關於「智慧財產權方面的問題」，或是對這個根本不存在的領域的概括，都是愚蠢的。如果你試圖把這些所有的法律當作一個問題來對待，那你就會傾向於從眾多過度概括的意見中選擇一個，而這些意見都不怎樣。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Rejection of &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is not mere philosophical recreation.  The term does real harm.  Apple used it to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">warp debate about Nebraska's &ldquo;right to repair&rdquo; bill</a>.  The bogus concept gave Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which conflicts with its customers' rights, as a supposed principle that customers and the state must yield to.
zh_TW: 拒絕「智慧財產瘸」不只是哲學式的消遣。這個詞真的有害。蘋果用它來<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">扭區 Nebraska 的「維修權利」法案</a>。這個虛假的概念使得蘋果能在與客戶發生利益衝突時，裝成更願意維護商業機密的樣子，從而迫使客戶與政府屈服。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics.  The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.
zh_TW: 如果你希望清晰地思考專利問題、著作權問題、商標問題，或是其他法律相關的問題，那麼第一步該做的，就是不要把它們攪在一起，要把它們當成不同的問題，分開對待。第二步就是要拒絕接受「智慧財產權」這個詞描述的那個狹礙單純的世界。不同問題分開來對待，這樣你才能考慮周全。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is <a href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for changing the name and substance of WIPO</a>.
zh_TW: 另外，也是時候要求 WIPO 改變了，這裡有<a href="http://fsfe.org/projects/wipo/wiwo.en.html">一份要求他們更名的提案</a>。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: See also <a href="/philosophy/komongistan.html">The Curious History of Komongistan (Busting the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;)</a>.
zh_TW: 也請參見 <a href="/philosophy/komongistan.html">Komongistan 的奇特歷史（打破「智慧財產權」的概念）</a>。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Countries in Africa are a lot more similar than these laws, and &ldquo;Africa&rdquo; is a coherent geographical concept; nonetheless, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton"> talking about &ldquo;Africa&rdquo; instead of a specific country causes lots of confusion</a>.
zh_TW: 非洲國家與這些法律相似，「非洲」也是一個清晰的地理概念；儘管如此，<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton">談論「非洲」而不是特指某個非洲國家還是會導致許多困惑</a>。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"> Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term</a>.
zh_TW: <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"> Rickard Falkvinge 支持廢除該術語</a>。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/"> Cory Doctorow also condemns</a> the term &ldquo;intellectual property.&rdquo;
zh_TW: <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/"> Cory Doctorow 也認為</a>「智慧財產權」一詞不當。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
zh_TW: 請來信到 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a> 詢問有關自由軟體基金會（FSF）和 GNU 的一般問題；或者<a href="/contact/">以其他方式</a>聯絡自由軟體基金會。至於損毀的連結及其他修正和建議，可以將之寄給 <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>。

note: TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a hr
en: Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.
zh_TW: 我們努力盡所能提供貼切、品質良善的翻譯。然而，我們無法十全十美，還請將你的意見評述與一般建議寄給 <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p>
    <p>請參照 <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">翻譯讀我 README</a> 來瞭解協調和提交我們的網頁翻譯相關事宜。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.
zh_TW: 本頁面採用<a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.zh_TW">創用 CC 姓名標示-禁止改作 4.0 國際</a>條款給予授權。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
zh_TW: <b>翻譯</b>：黃柏諺 <a href="mailto:s8321414 (at) gmail (dot) com">&lt;s8321414 (at) gmail (dot) com&gt;</a>, 2019.

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
zh_TW: 更新時間︰
