影音娱乐 新浪首页 > 影音娱乐 > 电影宝库 > 陈凯歌《无极》遭遇胡戈馒头血案专题 >正文

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
点击此处查看全部娱乐图片


  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DVD,(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 his 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 too. So I made an interview with Richard Stallman who is the founder of Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org), the GNU project (www.gnu.org) and the academician 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 dialogue, 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, The Steamed Bread Murder Case, when I knew you cared it too, I feel a little amazed. 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 probably regarded it as an oddity, but I think it is an important issue, for two reasons. First of all, I love jokes, and especially parodies, so I am outraged when 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 are 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 Jon Johansen did it. Now that free software is censored in the US, and that gives me only two ethical options: to get it underground, or to boycott DVDs. I prefer to boycott DVDs, because it makes a better point. Besides, since the movie companies are at the forefront of trying to impose new restrictive copyright 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 these two videos. That would be ethical, in my view; peer-to-peer sharing is ethical and should be lawful. But I am sure that the MPAA thinks of me as an enemy, and perhaps it is looking for an excuse to sue me. So in general I would rather simply not see them. I rarely see movies, except on airplanes. Anyway, books 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 hope 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 either 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 of anything. That is an important part of freedom of expression.

  The US is no great example nowadays of respect for human rights. But in one 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 to get someone's permission before you make fun of him by parodying his work. It is lawful, pure and simple.

  Bill Xu:

  As we know, you are the founder of FSF, and launched the GNU project and GPL, the spirit guru of free software movement, the first one that know the harm of proprietary software. You encourage people to share the source code, and study, copy, modify and redistribute the computer software. Could you please tell 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 mainly 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 must be free(ziyou, not mianfei): that means every user deserves four essential freedom:

  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 jobs--art has a different kind of purpose. So I don't think that people should _in 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. Although 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 distributes Chen's film, or something quite similar to it, I think it is ok for Chen to be able to sue and stop him, and/or collect money from him. But copyright law must be designed to serve the public good--to promote culture while respecting the essential freedoms of all. When it does not respect these essential freedoms, then it is too restrictive.

  Bill Xu:

  Now some lawyers or experts think that Hu infracted Chen's copyright, so from 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 phenomenon?

  Richard Stallman:

  It shows that Chinese copyright law might need to be changed in order to respect 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 organizations 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 talking 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 India. 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 about 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 Christians that speak Hindi and eat with chopsticks. (I would be surprised to learn that even one such person really exists.)

  Now imagine that everyone was confused in that way, so that there was nobody who could clear up the confusion. That's how bad the confusion gets when people try to think about "intellectual property". Anyone who uses the term "intellectual 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 someday one of my song parodies will be such a triumph. Second, I beg Mr Hu never 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 considered 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 parody, 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 constitution can give a just judgment which will reflect the public opinion. Form this incident; 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, such as GPLv3, in the future! Thank you!

  Richard Stallman:

  I look forward to it.

发表评论 

爱问(iAsk.com) 相关网页共约2,210,000篇。


评论影行天下收藏此页 多种方式看新闻下载点点通打印】【关闭



影音娱乐意见反馈留言板
电话:010-62647003 欢迎批评指正

新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

Copyright © 1996-2006 SINA Corporation, All Rights Reserved

新浪公司 版权所有