Counterpoint: Downloading Isn’t Stealing

原文：http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001112

譯文：https://bbs.popkart.org/?thread-141.htm

by Aaron Swartz

作者: Aaron Swartz

The?New York Times Upfront?asked me to contribute a short piece to a point/counterpoint they were having on downloading. (I would defend downloading, of course.) I thought I managed to write a pretty good piece, especially for its size and audience, in a couple days. But then I found out my piece was cut because the Times had decided not to tell kids to break the law. So, from the graveyard, here it is.

《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》前期版正在就下載這種行為刊登支持者和反對(duì)者的觀點(diǎn)，他們想讓我也就此發(fā)表一些自己的看法 。(我當(dāng)然是站在下載這一方的。)我花了幾天時(shí)間，寫(xiě)了一篇自認(rèn)為很不錯(cuò)的文章，對(duì)讀者來(lái)說(shuō)內(nèi)容其實(shí)是很豐富的。但是后來(lái)我發(fā)現(xiàn)我的文章沒(méi)有被刊登出來(lái)，因?yàn)榧~約時(shí)報(bào)擔(dān)心我的文章被孩子們看到后可能會(huì)有法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。所以，紐約時(shí)報(bào)簡(jiǎn)直就是墳場(chǎng)。

Stealing is wrong. But downloading isn’t stealing. If I shoplift an album from my local record store, no one else can buy it. But when I download a song, no one loses it and another person gets it. There’s no ethical problem.

偷竊是錯(cuò)誤的。但是下載并不是偷竊。如果我從當(dāng)?shù)氐某晖盗艘粡埑蜎](méi)有人為這張唱片買單了。但是當(dāng)我下載一首歌曲時(shí)，沒(méi)有人遭受損失，其他人也可以下載（可以很多人同時(shí)擁有，不像唱片一樣只能被一個(gè)人擁有）。在道德上這沒(méi)有任何問(wèn)題。

Music companies blame a fifteen percent drop in sales since 2000 on downloading. But over the same period, there was a recession, a price hike, a 25% cut in new releases, and a lack of popular new artists. Factoring all that in, maybe downloading?increases?sales. And 90% of the catalog of the major labels isn’t for sale anymore. The Internet is the only way to hear this music.

音樂(lè)公司將 2000 年以來(lái) 15%的銷量下降歸咎于下載。但在同一時(shí)期，出現(xiàn)了經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退、價(jià)格上漲、新專輯降價(jià) 25%，以及缺乏受歡迎的新藝人?？紤]到所有這些因素，也許下載可以增加銷量。而且90% 的唱片已經(jīng)不再銷售?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)是聽(tīng)到這些音樂(lè)的唯一途徑。

Even if downloading did hurt sales, that doesn’t make it unethical. Libraries and video stores (neither of which pay per rental) hurt sales too. Is it unethical to use them?

即使下載確實(shí)損害了銷售，但這并不意味著它不道德。圖書(shū)館和音像店(兩者都不按租金付費(fèi))也損害了銷售。使用它們是否也不道德？

Downloading may be illegal. But 60 million people used Napster and only 50 million voted for Bush or Gore. We live in a democracy. If the people want to share files then the law should be changed to let them.

下載可能是非法的。但是有 6000 萬(wàn)人使用 Napster，只有 5000 萬(wàn)人投票給布什或戈?duì)?。我們生活在一個(gè)民主國(guó)家。如果人們想分享文件，那么法律應(yīng)該做出改變讓人們可以分享他們的文件。

And there’s a fair way to change it. A Harvard professor found that a $60/yr. charge for broadband users would make up for all lost revenues. The government would give it to the affected artists and, in return, make downloading legal, sparking easier-to-use systems and more shared music. The artists get more money and you get more music. What’s unethical about that?

有一個(gè)公平的方法可以改變它。一位哈佛教授發(fā)現(xiàn) 60 美元/年。對(duì)寬帶用戶收費(fèi)將彌補(bǔ)所有收入損失。政府將把它給受影響的藝術(shù)家，作為回報(bào)，它將使下載合法化，從而引發(fā)更易于使用的系統(tǒng)和更多的共享音樂(lè)樂(lè)。藝術(shù)家得到更多的錢，你得到更多的音樂(lè)。這有什么不道德的？

Footnotes:

腳注:

“a fifteen percent drop in sales since 2000”: This is from?the RIAA’s own chart. In 1999, they sold 938.9M CDs, in 2002 they sold 803.3M. (938.9-803.3)/938.9 ~= .14 (so it’s really closer to 14%, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say 15%).

“自2000年以來(lái)銷售額下降了15%”: 這來(lái)自美國(guó)唱片業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)自己的圖表。1999年，他們賣出了93890萬(wàn)張 cd，2002年，他們賣出了80330萬(wàn)張 cd (938.9-803.3)/938.9 ~ = 0.14(所以這實(shí)際上接近14% ，但我們會(huì)給他們一些懷疑的好處，說(shuō)15%)。

“a 25% cut in new releases”: It depends on how you count. The RIAA says they released 38,900 new releases in 1999. According to?SoundScan?the RIAA released 31,734 new releases in 2001, leading to an 18% drop. This isn’t really fair, since we’re using RIAA numbers for 1999 and SoundScan numbers for 2001, and SoundScan probably doesn’t count as many albums as the RIAA does. However, the RIAA said in early 2003 that they released 27,000 new albums the previously year. Apparently embarassed by this information, they’ve since removed it from their website. But if you use their numbers, you get a 31% drop. I’ve split the difference and called it a 25% cut. But I could change this to 30% or 20% if you wanted; I don’t think it would change the argument.

“新發(fā)行的版本減少25%”: 這取決于你如何計(jì)算。美國(guó)唱片業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)說(shuō)，他們?cè)?999年發(fā)布了38,900個(gè)新唱片。根據(jù) SoundScan 的數(shù)據(jù)，RIAA 在2001年發(fā)布了31734個(gè)新版本，所以下降了18% 。這真的不公平，因?yàn)槲覀兪褂?RIAA 1999年的數(shù)字和 SoundScan 2001年的數(shù)字，并且 SoundScan 可能沒(méi)有 RIAA 那么多的專輯。然而，唱片協(xié)會(huì)在2003年初表示，他們?cè)谇耙荒臧l(fā)行了27000張新專輯。顯然，他們對(duì)這些信息感到尷尬，因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)從網(wǎng)站上刪除了這些信息。但是如果你使用他們的數(shù)字，你會(huì)算出31% 的下降。我折中了一下，稱之為25% 的削減。但如果你愿意的話，我可以把它改成30% 或者20% ; 我不認(rèn)為這會(huì)改變這個(gè)論點(diǎn)。

“90% of the major label’s catalog isn’t available for sale”:?speech by Ken Hertz

“主流廠商的90% 的唱片不再銷售”: 肯 · 赫茲的演講

“60 million people used Napster”:?according to the New York Times

據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道，“有6000萬(wàn)人使用 Napster”

“50 million voted for Bush or Gore”:?according to CNN

據(jù)美國(guó)有線電視新聞網(wǎng)報(bào)道，“5000萬(wàn)人投票給了布什或戈?duì)枴?/p>

“A Harvard professor found that a $60 per year tax on broadband connections would make up for all lost music and movie sales”: see?Terry Fisher, Promises to Keep. “Assuming that the ISPs pass through to consumers the entire amount of the tax, that average fee would rise by $4.88 per month” (p. 31) 4.88*12 ~= 59, so I say $60/yr.

“一位哈佛大學(xué)教授發(fā)現(xiàn)，每年60美元的寬帶連接稅將彌補(bǔ)所有失去的音樂(lè)和電影銷售。”?！凹僭O(shè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商將全部稅款轉(zhuǎn)嫁給消費(fèi)者，平均費(fèi)用將每月上漲4.88美元”(第31頁(yè))4.88 * 12 ~ = 59，所以我說(shuō)60美元/年。