数字传播时代的版权与言论自由权之争：对转换性使用的哲学思考
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
30余年来版权自身的扩张、半个世纪以来公民言论自由权的张扬以及近20年来数字复制与传播技术的迅猛发展在网络2.0参与式文化时代形成了一股巨大的合力,这股合力将版权与个人言论自由权之间近两个世纪来一直存而不显的矛盾推到了聚光灯下。在这一矛盾中,个人利用版权作品的要素或片断,然后或者通过增加原创性内容,或者通过创造性地组合所使用的内容而产生的转换性使用(transformative uses)是最根本的核心,而围绕(数字)转换性使用的侵权纷争所引发的言论自由争议也已然成为了学界乃至普通公众所关注的热点问题。
     如何在现实层面应对数字时代的版权与言论自由权之争将直接影响到版权所有者的经济计算、网络产业的商业模式、普通公民的宪法权利以及数字文化的展现形态,但现有的版权法体系却无法在其内部为解决这一问题提供足够的实证法资源。在这一情形下,从道德哲学与法哲学层面对(数字)转换性使用的合法性地位进行规范性的探讨并厘清版权与言论自由权各自的应然界限就具有了必要性乃至紧迫性,因为这样一种规范性的哲学探讨可能会为当代版权法实践在数字时代的调整乃至转型提供某种反思资源。
     本文试图在批判现有的功利主义与自然权利进路的基础上提出一种平等主义进路,并且利用费希特版权理论对版权作品“公共论坛”特性的揭示,以期为学界解析这一冲突以及辨析(数字)转换性使用的合法性提供一种新的视角。
     本文正文分为四章。第一章首先对版权与言论自由权之争的兴起作了简要的历史性回顾。然后本章对(数字)转换性使用的定义、分类、其与参与式文化的关联、其所具有的言论自由价值及其在当代美国版权法实践中所处的境况作了全面的归纳与辨析。该章表明,尽管(数字)转换性使用极大地提升了使用者参与文化环境建构的主观能动性,并且这一数字参与式文化具有无可辩驳的言论自由价值,但美国现有的版权法实践并不能为其提供足够的保护,其核心原因是转换性使用并未被界定成使用者的一项言论自由权利,从而无法获得同版权平等的道德合法性地位。
     第二章批判性地对版权-言论自由权功利主义进路进行了综述。功利主义进路强调美国版权法的核心原则是政府授予作者对其作品一定期限的专有权以为其继续创作提供激励,并最终实现文化/言论的生产最大化以及观点多样化。通过否定版权的私有财产权本质从而间接提升言论自由权的价值地位这一策略,该进路试图借助美国宪法第一修正案法理来遏制版权的迅速扩张,从而确保公民言论自由权的行使。本章最后将表明,功利主义进路存在着若干缺陷,其中最为核心的一个缺陷是其必然会导致允许侵犯个人基本财产权利来换取多数人的福利增进这样一种道德取向,这是因为功利主义无法区分不同个人的独特价值。
     第三章批判性地对版权-言论自由权自然权利进路进行了综述。本章首先阐述了自然权利以尊重个人平等的内在尊严为核心的理念结构,并强调了自然权利理念在美国语境中的深远意义。本章然后对根据洛克的自然权利(劳动)理论而形成的版权自然权利观进行了阐述,并揭示了其在美国版权史中的持久影响力。本章随后对自然权利进路的几种具体理路进行了归纳,指出自然权利进路的核心是在承认版权具有自然权利式的私人财产权属性的基础上,通过洛克的自然权利理论以及自然法本身所内涵的限权逻辑来解决版权与言论自由权之间的龃龉。本章最后指出了该进路所犯的通病:将公开出版的版权作品视作为类似于抽象观念的准公共产品,从而导致对版权所有者私有财产权的过度限制。
     第四章接续了版权-言论自由权自然权利进路的基本取向,将版权视作为一种洛克式的私人财产权。通过厘定言论自由权的道德合法性基础,作为一种私人财产权的版权与个人的言论自由权被纳入了一个基本权利体系之内。这一基本权利体系所依托的是一种康德式的平等主义理念,该理念为私人财产权与言论自由权所享有的平等地位提供了最根本的道德理据,也构成了本文所主张的平等主义进路。本章进而对版权作品所具有的“公共产品”特性与“公共论坛”特性进行了解析,并表明这两个特性分别对应着版权与改造性使用权各自所具有的道德合法性。对版权作品的这两个特性所作的解析厘清了版权与言论自由权各自的道德界限,并最终论证了版权作品合法获取者对版权作品进行(数字)转换性使用这一言论自由权利的道德合法性。
     本文的核心结论是,版权作品合法获取者对版权作品进行(数字)转换性使用以及传播转换性作品的行为应该被看成是其的一项言论自由权利,该权利为版权所有者施加了不得干预其行使的道德义务。数字参与式文化时代凸显了这一言论自由权利所具有的道德规范性的现实意义。与此同时,(数字)转换性使用也是版权所有者的私有财产权对版权作品合法获取者所提出的道德要求。于是,(数字)转换性使用本身既成为了版权与言论自由权之间彼此划界的根本原则,又标示了私有财产权与言论自由权的道德平等性在数字文化领域的具体实现。
     本文在最后还加了两个附录。附录一综述了美国最高法院关于公民在私人所有的大型购物商场中行使言论自由权利的相关案例,其目的是为本文所提出的平等主义进路提供实证案例法层面上的参考。附录二对平等主义进路所可能导致的四个主要的版权法实践困境加以辨析,其目的是为该进路所具有的可行性提供经验性佐证。
The unchecked expansion of the copyright regime in the last 30 years, the celebrated promotion of citizens’right to free speech in the last half century and the explosive development of digital technology in the last two decades have constituted an uneasy combination of conflicting forces, which finally activates the dormant tension between copyright and the right to free speech with the advent of the Web 2.0 participatory culture. Occupying the center of this tension is the issue of users’transformative uses of copyrighted works. A transformative use of a copyrighted work refers to a use which, though incorporating key elements or portions of the copyrighted work, results in an original work in its own right by either adding original content or creatively rearranging the used elements or portions of the copyrighted work. Due to its strong relevance toward freedom of speech, the controversy surrounding the potential copyright infringement of (digital) transformative uses has stirred up increasingly heated debates within both the professional academia and the popular media.
     How to respond to the tension between copyright and the right to free speech in the digital age will have a direct impact upon the economic calculation of copyright owners, the possible business models of the network industry, the exertion of constitutional rights by citizens and the tapestry of the digital culture. However, the current copyright jurisprudence itself can not provide sufficient positivist legal resources to enable a satisfactory resolution. Under this circumstance, a normative examination of the moral legitimacy of (digital) transformative uses and the moral boundary between copyright and the right to free speech acquires relevance and urgency, since such a philosophical inquiry may offer some insights for the necessary structural adjustment of the copyright regime in the face of the digital challenge.
     Building on critical examinations of the current two approaches toward the issues, i.e. the utilitarian and the natural rights, this thesis attempts to offer an alternative egalitarian approach, which, together with borrowing Fichte’s insight upon the“public forum”characteristic of published copyrighted works, will provide a new perspective for untangling the conflict between copyright and the right to free speech and ascertaining the moral justification for (digital) transformative uses. The thesis is composed of four main chapters. Chapter one first recalls briefly the historical emergence of the tension between copyright and the right to free speech before giving a detailed description of the definition and classification of transformative uses. The chapter then examines and summarizes the relationship between (digital) transformative uses and participatory culture, the free speech values of (digital) transformative uses, and their legal dilemma within the current U.S. copyright law system. This chapter demonstrates that although transformative uses have sharpened user’s awareness of his/her cultural agency through active participation in the social process of meaning production, which has significant free speech values, the current U.S copyright regime can’t offer them sufficient protection. The key reason behind this insufficiency is that transformative uses of copyrighted works are not legally defined as the users’right to free speech but an affirmative defense against copyright infringement charges, which puts them on an unequal footing with copyright owners’exclusive entitlements.
     Chapter two critically examines the utilitarian approach toward solving the conflict between copyright and the right to free speech. The utilitarian approach regards copyright as a state-granted statutory privilege rather than the author’s natural property right, designed to give creators enough incentive to create in order to realize the ultimate policy purpose of maximizing speech production and pluralizing viewpoints expressed. Deploying the strategy of enhancing the value rank of the right to free speech by negating the natural right character of copyright and applying the First Amendment principle of strict scrutiny against state-granted content regulations, the utilitarian approach attempts to reverse the trend towards unchecked expansion of contemporary copyright regime so as to ensure citizens’constitutionally guaranteed exercise of the right to free speech. However, the unavoidable failure of utilitarianism to recognize the separate intrinsic value of individual persons inevitably leads to the morally controversial consequence of sacrificing individual’s basic property rights for the purpose of achieving the overall welfare.
     Chapter three critically examined the natural rights approach towards solving the conflict between copyright and the right to free speech. The chapter first exposes the essence of the natural rights conception, which is the equal respect toward each person’s intrinsic dignity, and then reveals the importance of the natural rights tradition within the U.S. political morality. After giving a detailed account of the natural rights conception of copyright based on Locke’s labor theory and its lasting influence within the history of U.S. copyright regime, the chapter summarizes the basic structure of the natural rights approach, which firmly endorses the Lockean natural rights character of copyright while making full use of the various internal restrictions or provisos imposed upon private or intellectual property rights within both Locke’s theory and other natural law principles. In other words, the natural rights approach attempts to reconcile the incongruence between copyright and the right to free speech by deploying the inherent moral requirements of natural rights rather than positivist legal doctrines. However, the natural rights approach tends to treat published copyrighted works as quasi-common cultural resources similar to abstract ideas, thus blurring the line between the right to access the copyrighted work and the right to use the copyrighted work after securing the legal access. Consequently, the natural rights approach overly restricts the copyright owners’capacity to exert certain exclusive control upon their published works.
     Chapter four espouses the main argument of this thesis, which is a rights egalitarian approach. Inheriting the principled recognition of the natural rights character of copyright emphasized by the natural rights approach, this chapter first clarifies the ultimate moral reason underpinning the legitimacy of freedom of speech, thus integrating the Lockean right to private property and the right to free speech in a system of basic rights, which is morally grounded on the Kantian equal respect towards the intrinsic value and humanity of individual persons as separate rational agents. By this way, the equal moral status between copyright as a Lockean private property right and the individual’s right to free speech is justified and highlighted. The chapter continues to explain how the two essential characteristics of copyrighted works, i.e. public goods and public forum, provide the necessary practical roadmap to implement the egalitarian approach in reality. By demonstrating the intimate connections between these two characteristics and the moral legitimacy of copyright and the right to make transformative uses respectively, this chapter finally demarcates the moral boundary between copyright and the right to free speech, while affirming the moral justification for users’free speech right to make (digital) transformative uses of those copyrighted works to which the prior legal access has been secured.
     The conclusion of this thesis is that (digital) transformative uses of copyrighted works and then the distribution of the resulting transformative works should be classified as the user’s right to freedom of speech, which imposes a non-interference duty upon copyright owners, as long as the legal access to the copyrighted works has been secured in advance. Although the moral normativity of this particular right to freedom of speech should be recognized long before the age of digital participatory culture, its real-life relevance and urgency have been significantly accentuated by the digital momentum. In the meantime, (digital) transformative use should also be regarded as a moral requirement of copyright owners’private property rights towards users of copyrighted works. Thus, (digital) transformative uses not only serves as the fundamental principle in demarcating the dividing boundary between copyright and the right to speech, but also represents the manifestation of the equal moral status of private property rights and free speech right within the intellectual arena in the digital age.
     There are two appendices to this thesis. Appendix one examines and summarizes the legal reasoning in a series of Supreme Court cases dealing with the issue of to what extent the owner of an open-to-all shopping mall can restrict citizens’expressive activities within the mall. These cases will be used as a possible source of positivist legal reference for the egalitarian approach presented by this thesis.
     Appendix two explores four probable practical dilemmas if the egalitarian approach was adopted by the current copyright jurisprudence. By elucidating that these scenarios will not materialize, the practical feasibility of the egalitarian approach obtains a further empirical support.
引文
9 Patricia Loughlan, Looking at the Matrix: Intellectual Property and Expressive Freedom, 24 European Intellectual Property Review, 30 (2002).
    10 Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press? 17 UCLA L. Rev. p1180 (1969-1970).
    11 James L. Swanson, Copyright vs. the First Amendment: Forecasting an End to the Storm, 7 Loy. Ent. L.J.
    273-274. (1987)
    12 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 1.
    13 17 U.S.C.§102, 106, 302, 1201.
    14 Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 190. (2003).
    15 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119, 122 ( 2d Cir. 1930)
    16 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 61-62.
    17关于“合理使用”原则的模糊性,Christina Bohannan做过一个简明扼要的综述,见其Taming the Derivative Works Right: A Modest Proposal for Reducing Overbreadth and Vagueness in Copyright, 12 VANDERBILT J. ENT. AND TECH. LAW 683-689.
    18 John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 465 (2004-2005)
    19Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books, 2006.第二、三章。
    20 David McGowan, Copyright Nonconsequentialism, 69 Missouri Law Review, No. 1, winter 2004. p58.关于司法审查,可参见王希:《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。第134页。
    21 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p169. 2003年Eldred v. Ashcroft一案挑战《松尼波诺版权延长法案》失败是最佳证明。
    22参见Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, New York: Random House, 1971, p627。象,其视野并没有超越以Meiklejohn为代表的工具主义言论自由学者。除此之外,拜Chafee所赐,这些保守自由至上主义者的论述早被边缘化出了主流言论自由学者的学理资源库。详见Mark A. Graber, Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.第一、二章。
    24参见Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, New York: Random House, 1971,第17章。
    25 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornilla, 418 U.S. 241.
    26 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969),在该案中,最高法院判定联邦通讯委员会的“公平原则”合宪;Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 819 F.Supp. 32 (D.C.Cir. 1993),在该案中,华盛顿地区巡回法院判定联邦通讯委员会针对有线电视的“必须播出”(must-carry)规定合宪。
    27 Mark A. Graber, Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991;G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 299 1996-1997.
    28参见James W. Ely, Jr. Property Rights and Free Speech: Allies or Enemies? pp. 177-180.
    29参见Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States (4th Edition), State College: Strata Publishing, Inc. 2001. p279.
    30参见Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. pp.195-213; Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth,1977, pp.184-205, 266-278;C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp.47-69.
    31 Ioannis G. Dimitrakopoulos, Individual Rights and Liberties under the U.S. Constitution: The Case Law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. pp. 526-527.
    32 Tim Wu, Tolerated Use, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 619 2007-2008.
    33 Tarleton Gillespie, Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culure. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007. 第6章。
    34 Daniel Gervais, The Tangled Web of UGC: Making Copyright Sense of User-Generated Content, 11 Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech Law. 841, 847 (2009)
    35 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p45.该书将P2P文件共享行为也纳入其所考察的版权与言论自由权之关系这一主题之中实在是自相矛盾。
    36 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p196.
    37 Daniel Gervais, The Tangled Web of UGC: Making Copyright Sense of User-Generated Content, 11 Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech Law. 841, 863.
    38 Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (1989-1990).
    39 Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1111(1989-1990).
    40 Matthew D. Bunker, Eroding Fair Use: The“Transformative”Use Doctrine After Campbell, 7 COMM. L. & POL’Y 1, 6 (2002).
    41 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)
    42 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)
    43详见第五节。
    44参见Nicolas Suzor为转换性使用所作的定义,该定义比Leval与美国最高法院的定义都更为简洁明了,但却又凸显了前者的核心要件。Transformative Use of Copyright Material, LLM Thesis, QUT School of Law. PDF, pp. 1, 5.
    45 Mary W. S. Wong,‘Transformative’User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, 11 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 1115 (2009). Nicolas Suzor, Transformative Use of Copyright Material, LLM Thesis, QUT School of Law. PDF, p5.
    49 Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age, Research Publication No. 2006-05, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School. PDF, p7; Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal, 651, 655(1997)
    50 Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age, Research Publication No. 2006-05, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School. PDF, p7.
    51 Andrew S. Long, Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the FA Values of Transformative Video, 60 Oklahoma Law Review, 317 (2007).
    52 Nicolas Suzor, Transformative Use of Copyright Material, LLM Thesis, QUT School of Law. PDF, p35.尽管
    54 Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1, 36-46 (2004).
    55 Daniel Gervais, The Tangled Web of UGC: Making Copyright Sense of User-Generated Content, 11 Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech Law. 850 (2009)
    56 Jessica Litman, The Public Domain, 39 Emory L. J. 965 (1990).
    57 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. PDF, p24.
    58 Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Dartmouth, 1996. p62.
    59 Jessica Litman, The Public Domain, 39 Emory L. J. 966 (1990).
    60 E. Kenly Ames, Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation. 93 Columbia Law Review, 1473, 1478-1479 (1993).
    61 Roxana Badin, An Appropriate(d) Place in Transformative Value: Appropriation Art’s Exclusion from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 60 Brook. L. Rev. 1653, 1672-1673 (1994-1995)
    62 Marcel Duchamp的作品L.H.O.O.Q.应该是最有名的案例了。在这部作品中,Duchamp在名画《蒙娜丽莎》中那位女士的嘴上粘上了一幅小胡子。E. Kenly Ames, Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation. 93 Columbia Law Review, 1473, 1484 (1993).
    63 Jean Baudrillard, The Precession of Simulacra,载于Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. pp.453-457.
    64 E. Kenly Ames, Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation. 93 Columbia Law Review, 1473, 1480 (1993).
    65 E. Kenly Ames, Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation. 93 Columbia Law Review, 1473, 1482-1484 (1993); Nicolas Suzor, Transformative Use of Copyright Material, LLM Thesis, QUT School of Law. PDF, pp.16-24.
    66 Roxana Badin, An Appropriate(d) Place in Transformative Value: Appropriation Art’s Exclusion from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 60 Brook. L. Rev. 1653, 1662-1664 (1994-1995)
    67粉丝创作实际上在上世纪20年代就已出现,参见Casey Fiesler, Everything I Need to Know I learned from Fandom: How Existing Social Norms Can Help Shape the Next Generation of User-Generated Content. 10 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 729, 735; Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal, 651, 655(1997).
    68 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p33.
    69 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984. pp. xiii-xiv.
    70 Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. p23.
    71 Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson and Jane Shattuc, Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture. Duke University Press, 2003. p11.
    72 Cornel Sandvoss, Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Polity, 2005. p13.
    73 John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 1989; John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997. p12.
    74 Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. p31.
    75 Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. pp.65-66.
    76 Daniel Cavicchi, Tramps Like US: Music and Meaning among Springsteen Fans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. p62; Kazys Varnelis (ed.), Networked Publics. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008. p62.
    77 Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal, 651, 669(1997).
    78对粉丝行为与“交换价值”以及“使用价值”之间的关系,参见Matt Hills, Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002. p35.
    79对粉丝活动与商业逻辑以及话语霸权之间的复杂关系,详见Matt Hills, Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002. pp.27-45; Cornel Sandvoss, Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Polity, 2005. pp. 39-42.
    80 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p135.
    81 John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 1989. p126.
    82 Kazys Varnelis (ed.), Networked Publics. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008. p158.
    83 Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1, 7-9, 37 (2004).
    84 Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age. New York: New York University Press, 2006. pp.135-136; Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009. p8.
    85 Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p150; Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce thrive in the Hybrid Economy. The Penguin Press, 2008. pp.211-212.
    86 Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009. pp.8-10.
    87 Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce thrive in the Hybrid Economy. The Penguin Press, 2008.第4章。
    88当然,这里的年轻人群体主要指的是经济发达地区(欧美、东亚)拥有便捷且廉价的数字产品与网络连接的年轻人。
    89 John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008. pp.111-129.
    90 Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce thrive in the Hybrid Economy. The Penguin Press, 2008. pp.225-249.公共讨论/民主政治的功能性关联上。为避免混淆(特别是“自由至上主义”既有后果主义又有自然权利义务论的理解——这也是Mark Graber将其分为“古典自由至上主义”与“公民自由至上主义”的原因)以及突出其核心理念,本文采用“真理/民主促进论”一词。
    94 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p15.
    95约翰·密尔:《论自由》,程崇华译。北京:商务印书馆,1996。第18页。另见Tucker, Law, Liberalism and Free Speech. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985. p12.
    96约翰·密尔:《论自由》,程崇华译。北京:商务印书馆,1996。第56页。
    97 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. pp.23-27; Mark A. Graber, Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
    98 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.4-7; Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. pp.34-35; Paul A. Passavant, A Moral Geography of Liberty: John Stuart Mill and American Free Speech Discourse. Social & Legal Studies, 1996 5: 301, p302.但也有学者指出Mill的言论自由理论其实并不支持“言论市场”这一比喻,因为Mill强调对弱势言论,也就是最可能被市场边缘化的少数派言论的特殊关照,而不是对言论市场结果的一味接受。参见Jill Gordon, John Stuart Mill and the“Marketplace of Ideas”, 23 (2) Social Theory and Practice, 235 (1997)一文。
    99Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630(1919).这里采用的是邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》(北京:北京大学出版社,2004)一书中的译文(见该书第31页)。
    100 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630(1919).
    101 David M. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pp.371-378.
    102 Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. pp.58,67.事实上,最高法院直到1969年的Brandenburg v. Ohio一案才真正彻底地接受并且超越了“明显与现存的危险”标准来为颠覆性言论提供宪法保护,尽管该案所确立的原则究竟能否在类似于第一次世界大战的“红色恐惧”以及50年代初“麦克锡主义”笼罩全国那样的非常时期坚守阵地并不明朗。Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p67; David M. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p379.
    103这一转变也与当时的美国国际国内形势密切相关。始于30年代的“新政”强化了政府对自由市场的干预,其目的不但是为了拯救危机中的国民经济,也是为了通过建立国家福利体系来缓和因自由市场竞争而导致的财富不平等,从而保证普通公民的实际民主参与能力;在国际上,随着美国逐渐成为对垒法西斯主义与共产主义的自由民主世界的领袖,美国人越来越把自己的国家视为人类自由与理性的最后避难所。在这样的时代背景下,对美国民主本质的重申就成了一种强烈的民族自觉意识。可参见G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 331 (1996-1997).
    104Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 377.本文这里采用的是邱小平《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》一书中的译文(北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第44页。)关于Brandeis在这一转变过程中的肇始者地位的评价,参见G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 325 (1996-1997).
    105 Zechariah Chafee, Free Speech in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946. p6.
    106这是一个需要解释的判断。其实Meiklejohn的主要理论要素在Chafee的Free Speech in the United States一书中都可找到(在理论进路上两人都属于功能主义/后果主义一脉)。Chafee不但指出了美国政治的民主
    107 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. pp.3,9,11.
    108 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. p26.
    109 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. pp.26, 69.
    110 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. pp.11, 88.
    111 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. p94.
    112 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. pp.37,46; Alexander Meikeljohn, The First Amendment Is An Absolute. 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245 (1961).
    113 David M. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pp.382-388.除了Cass Sustein之外,另一位代表人物是Owen Fiss。参见后者的Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996一书。
    114 Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993. pp.xvi, 18-19;另见Cass R Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. p124.
    115 Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993. pp.20-21;另见Cass R Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. pp. 22-31.
    116 Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993. p122.另见Cass R Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. pp. 177-178.
    117 John Gray, Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge, 1996. pp.104-105; Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. p.263.
    118约翰·密尔:《论自由》,程崇华译。北京:商务印书馆,1996。第68、72页。
    119 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p27.
    120Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 376.译文采用邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》(第44页。北京:北京大学出版社,2004)。
    121 Zechariah Chafee, Free Speech in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946. p33.
    122 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p27.
    123 G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 356, 1996-1997.
    124 Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Random House, 1970. p6.
    125 G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 363-367, 1996-1997.
    126 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 25 (1971)
    127 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p5.下文将以自我实现覆盖自我决定,因为后者无非是前者在民主政治中的体现而已。
    128 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.48-49.
    129 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p.49.
    130 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.49-50.
    131 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p.59.
    132 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.30-31,
    68-69.
    133 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.70-73.
    134 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.56, 73.
    135 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.48,121.
    136 Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. p65.
    137 Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 47-49 (2004).
    138 Douglas Kellner, Media Spectacle. New York: Routledge, 2003. p.vii; Douglas Kellner, Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between Modern and the Post-modern. London: Routledge, 1995. p1.
    139 Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. p.31; Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 29 (2004).
    140 Max Horkheimer and Theodor W Adorno, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,载于Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. p52; Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin Books, 1985. pp. 155-163.
    141 Alan McKee, The Public Sphere: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 77-84. 该书对比了现代主义与后现代主义对待大众文化的态度,认为后者具有更大的包容性与亲民性。
    145 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. pp. 232, 293; Joke Hermes, Re-reading Popular Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. p1.
    146 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. pp. 284-289.
    147 Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson and Jane Shattuc, Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture. Duke University Press, 2003. p11.另见John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997. p33.
    148 John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997. pp. 38-42; Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p33.
    149 Douglas Kellner, Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between Modern and the Post-modern. London: Routledge, 1995. p1.
    150 Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson and Jane Shattuc, Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture. Duke University Press, 2003. p10; John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997. p36.
    151 Joke Hermes, Re-reading Popular Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. p3.
    152 Alan Mckee, The Public Sphere: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.该书第一章对这一私人-公共模糊性有极佳的描述。
    153 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p33.
    154 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p19.
    155 Nick Stevenson (ed.), Culture and Citizenship. London: SAGE publications, 2001. pp. 4-5; Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p239.
    156 John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 1989. pp. 187-193; Rosemary J. Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties. Duke University Press, 1998. p57.
    157 Rosemary J. Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties. Duke University Press, 1998. p42, 52; John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997. p40.
    158 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 190 (1997).
    159 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 270 (1964).
    160 Richard Dagger, Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. p196.
    161 Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Malden: Polity Press, 2009. pp. 53-54.
    162 Thomas Zittel and Dieter Fuchs (ed.), Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back In? London and New York: Routledge, 2007. p1.
    163 David Buckingham, The Making of Citizens: Young People, News and Politics. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. p27.
    164 John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008. pp. 264-266.
    166 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p238; Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the
    21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009. pp. 12-13.
    167 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    168 Electronic Frontier Foundation,“A Guide to YouTube Removals”, http://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals.但这并不表明版权产业对(数字)转换性使用此袖手旁观的态度。例如,Fox and Viacom就不但要求YouTube撤下明显侵犯版权的用户上传内容,比如整部美剧,而且也要求撤下粉丝创作的转换性作品。Casey Fiesler, Everything I Need to Know I learned from Fandom: How Existing Social Norms Can Help Shape the Next Generation of User-Generated Content. 10 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 729, 732-733.就目前来看,版权产业主要还是通过向以YouTube为代表的内容分享网站发律师信的方式来对付数字转换性作品的创作与传播。
    169从当代(数字)转换性使用的版权产品对象来看,美国版权法中的视觉艺术作品(单一成品或者复制件在200件以下的有作者签名及编码的绘画、雕刻以及相片)最多只占有极其边缘的位置,因此本文的论述主体将不涉及视觉艺术作者的道德权利问题,但本文的“余论”会对其有简短评论。这六项权利见17 U.S.C.§106.
    170但某复制是否属于“太过细微”仍然是一件可能需要法院判决的事实。
    171 Hannibal Travis, Pirates of the Information Infrastructure: Blackstonian Copyright and the First Amendment,
    15 BERKELEY TECH. L. & J. 777 2000.
    172 Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age, Research Publication No. 2006-05, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School. P12.
    173关于“实质性相似性”,参见Arthur R. Miller, Michael H. Davis, Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright (2nd edition).北京:中国人民大学出版社(影印本),2004。第337-341页。
    174在当代的美国版权法实践中,正是这一对原作品的“复制”(包括实质性相似)使得观念/表达二分法很难被运用于(数字)改造性使用的侵权抗辩之中,从而使得后者只能依赖于“合理使用”原则。
    175 17 U.S.C.§101
    176 Micro Star v. FormGen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 1998)
    177 Copyright Law Revision, House Report No. 94-1476, p62.
    178Christina Bohannan, Taming the Derivative Works Right: A Modest Proposal for Reducing Overbreadth and Vagueness in Copyright, 12 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 679 (2010).
    179 Jane C. Ginsburg, Recent Developments in US Copyright Law-Part II, Caselaw: Exclusive Rights on the Ebb? Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers, 2008.12.11. PDF, pp. 18-20.
    180对发行权的这一解读目前在美国法院以及版权法学界仍然大有争议。参见Jane C. Ginsburg, Recent Developments in US Copyright Law-Part II, Caselaw: Exclusive Rights on the Ebb? Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers, 2008.12.11. PDF, pp. 22-25.
    181由于这三项权利的相近性,此处一并讨论。
    182 17 U.S.C.§101.
    187另一个机制就是观念/表达二分法。
    188 17 U.S.C.§107.
    189 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 579 (1994)
    190 Thomas F. Cotter, Transformative Use and Cognizable Harm. 12 Vanderbilt J. Ent. And Tech. Law, 703 (2010).
    191 Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 560 (1985)
    192 Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111(1989-1990).
    193 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 579 (1994).
    194 John tehranian, Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and an Intermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review, 1214 (2005).
    195“Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors”, Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html.这一因素即便连最受宽容的戏拟也不能幸免,尽管法院对其尺度会相对宽松。另可参见Roxana Badin, An Appropriate(d) Place in Transformative Value: Appropriation Art’s Exclusion from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 60 Brook. L. Rev. 1667 (1994-1995)
    196“Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors”, Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html.这一因素对于第二节所列举的使用目的中的第二、三种特别相关。
    197 John tehranian, Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and an Intermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review, 1214 (2005); Naomi Abe Voegtli, Rethinking Derivative Rights, 63 Brook. L. Rev. 1213 (1997).
    198 Mary W. S. Wong,‘Transformative’User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, 11 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 1108 (2009).
    199 R. Anthony Reese, Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 485 (2007-2008).
    200 R. Anthony Reese, Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 489 (2007-2008)
    201 R. Anthony Reese, Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 495 (2007-2008); Thomas F. Cotter, Transformative Use and Cognizable Harm. 12 Vanderbilt J. Ent. And Tech. Law,
    718-720 (2010).关于这一目的的标准问题,详见下一段的分析。
    202“What is Fair Use?”, Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html.该中心直接把合理使用分析分为两类:批评与评论;戏拟。
    203“Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors”, Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html.
    204 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 580-581 (1994)
    205关于粉丝创作,参见Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal, 651, (1997);关于影音杂糅,参见Andrew S. Long, Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the FA Values of Transformative Video, 60 Oklahoma Law Review, 317 (2007);关于挪用艺术,参见Roxana Badin, An Appropriate(d) Place in Transformative Value: Appropriation Art’s Exclusion from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 60 Brook. L. Rev. 1653 (1994-1995).
    206 Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 The Yale Law Journal, 5-7 (2002).
    207 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 578 (1994).关于这一点,另可参见Ned Snow, Proving Fair Use: Burden of Proof as Burden of Speech. 31 Cardozo Law Review, 1787-1788 (2010).
    208美国法学家Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld对“权利”一词的法律分析已经成为美国法学界乃至哲学界讨论权
    210 Mary W. S. Wong,‘Transformative’User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, 11 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 1108 (2009).
    211 Abraham Drassinower, Taking User Rights Seriously,载于Michael Geist (ed.), In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law. Irwin Law, 2005. p468.
    212 Ned Snow, Proving Fair Use: Burden of Proof as Burden of Speech. 31 Cardozo Law Review, 1782 (2010).
    213 Rosemary J. Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties. Duke University Press, 1998. p78.
    214 Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 557-558 (1985)
    215 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 190. (2003).
    216 Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985).
    217 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Locating Copyright within the Fisrt Amendment Skein, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 3 (2001).
    218例如,Mary W. S. Wong,‘Transformative’User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, 11 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 1094-1095 (2009); David Lange & Jennifer Lange Anderson, Copyright, Fair Use and Transformative Critical Appropriation, p155. www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/langeand.pdf
    219例如,Graham Reynolds, Towards a Right to Engage in the Fair Transformative Use of Copyright-Protected
    228 James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. p100.另见Tim Mulgan, Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007. p1.
    229 Tim Mulgan, Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007. p61.
    230 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp13-18.
    231 Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams(ed), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp3-4.
    232 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p2; Robert E. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p3.
    233但事实上功利主义的平等原则并不是一种正义的平等原则。详见Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp37-45.
    234 Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams(ed), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p5.
    235 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. p172.
    236 Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams(ed), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp1-2..
    237 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp45-46.
    238 Robert E. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p12; Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp45-47.
    239 Robert E. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p8-11, 26.
    240 Robert E. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p14, 20.
    241 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. pp.169, 172.另见Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p33.
    242 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p21.
    244 L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. p49.
    245转引自Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p197.
    246 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 1.
    247 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 2.
    248 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 3.
    249 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 4.
    250 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 5.
    251 Copyright Act of 1790, Section 6.
    252 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p198.
    254 L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991.p77.
    255 L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. p116.
    256 Nimmer on Copyright,§2.02 and 2-18,转引自Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory,
    264 Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954).
    265 Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975).
    266 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).
    267 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 245 (2003).
    268转引自Neil Netanel,“Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique”, UCLA School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. pp24-25.
    269转引自L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. p49.
    270 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p13.
    271 Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. p29.
    272 Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. p30.
    273 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. p138.
    274 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p17.
    275 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p17.
    276 William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Portland: Thomas E. Walt, co, 1807. p 2.
    277 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p17.
    278 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p3.
    279 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p172.
    280 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p141.
    281 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp143, 150-153.这里要指出的是,以里根和撒切尔为首的新保守主义对财产权的保护并非出于将其视作为个人不可侵犯的自然权利,而是出于其政治功利主义——减轻政府财政负担、刺激经济增长、保证政治自由——的考量。Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p161.
    282 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p143.
    283 Margaret MacDonald, Natural Rights,载于Jeremy Waldron(ed.), Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. pp32-35.
    284 Gregory Vlastos, Justice and Equality,载于Jeremy Waldron(ed.), Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. pp55-57.
    285 Gregory Vlastos, Justice and Equality,载于Jeremy Waldron(ed.), Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. p44.
    286 Margaret MacDonald, Natural Rights,载于Jeremy Waldron(ed.), Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. pp23-28.
    287这一思路与20世纪初进步主义运动的思路如出一辙:后者在当时也积极反对将私人财产权看成是洛克式的自然权利,而主张将其视为政治社会的一种建构。James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p122.
    288 Neil Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. pp11-15; Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p7; Sara K. Stadler, Forging a Truly Utilitarian Copyright, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 642-643 2005-2006.
    289 Neil Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory ResearchPaper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. pp11-15.
    290柯武刚,史漫飞:《制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策》,韩朝华译。北京:商务印书馆,2002。第211页。
    291 Neil Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. p18.
    294 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. p61.
    295 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p8.
    296转引自Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p13.
    297 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p13.
    298 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p14.
    299 David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer. Free Press, p2。关于人生目标(计划)对于个人而言所具有的根本
    302这正是诺奇克的著名观点。Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974.另见Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp103-104, 108-110.
    303 Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. pp211-225.
    304 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992. pp. xi-xii.
    305 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p14.
    306 Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. pp.195-213
    307 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp117-121; Christina Bohannan, Taming the Derivative Works Right: A Modest Proposal for Reducing Overbreadth and Vagueness in Copyright, 12 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 673-676 2010.University Press, 2007.特别是第一章。
    315 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    316本文将以美国学者Neil Weinstock Netanel于2008年出版的Copyright’s Paradox (Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.)一书为该进路的主要代表。Netanel本人是该进路的旗帜人物,而他的这本书则被认为是“总结了10多年来诸多学者就版权与言论自由权之关系的思考与写作”(Patricia Aufderheide, Copyright’s Paradox (Book Review), Journal of Communication, 59 (2009) 189-203. )。
    317 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp11,37-38, 120, 193.
    318 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p171.
    
    319 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p82.
    320 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 5.
    321Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.117.
    322 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 171.
    323 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chapter 6.。
    324 Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Random House, 1970. p2.
    325 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 190(1997)
    326 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp35-38.
    327 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p185-190.
    328本文附录二会对这两种规则作较具体的解释。
    329 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp191-193.
    330 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp42-44.
    331 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp205-206.
    332 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp196-199。
    333 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp207-213. William W. FisherⅢ在其Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment一书中也提出过非常相似的政策建议。William W. FisherⅢ,Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.
    334 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp215-217.
    335 John Tehranian指出,1841年的Folsom v. Marsh一案标志着版权自然权利理论在美国法院判案理路中的东山再起,并从此主宰了立法与司法系统对版权的理解。John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright, 38 University of California Davis Law Review, 465, 2005.
    336详见下一章对版权自然权利理论的分析。
    337 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp 37,171.另见Fiona Macmillan, Commodification and Cultural Ownership,载于Jonathan Griffiths and Uma Suthersanen (ed.), Copyright and Free Speech: Comparative and International Analyses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
    338参见David McGowan, Why the First Amendment Cannot Dictate Copyright Policy, University of Pittsburg Law Review, Vol. 65, p 285.关于宪法第一修正案法理的局限性,可参见Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. pp. 16-29.
    339威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。第88-89页。
    340对该问题的一个很好的综述是Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Democracy: A Cautionary Note, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1933 2000.
    341 Steven Johnson, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. pp62-115
    342 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal, 538-546 1990. William Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property,载于Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. p180,
    343 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p32.详见本章第一节对功利主义原则的简要归纳。
    344 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property, p73。此外,Sen和Williams也指出,个人权利决不可以被整合成一种单一的整体。Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams(ed), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p19.
    345 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p35.
    346 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property, p78。
    347 Maurizio Borghi, Owning Form, Sharing Content: Natural-Right Copyright and Digital Environment, Fiona Macmillan (ed.), New Directions in Copyright Law, Volume 5, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar (2007),p219.
    348 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property, p39。根据Waldron的观点,只有当使用某物的最终决断权掌握在某个个人手里之时,这个人才可以说对该物拥有财产权。
    352参见L. Ray Patterson, Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use, 40 Vanderbilt Law Review, 5 1987.
    353 Gillian Davies, Copyright and the Public Interest. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002. p4-5.
    354 Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants or Uneasy Allies?, Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-09. p51.
    355 Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants or Uneasy Allies?, Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-09. pp52-54.
    356对这一基于宪法第一修正案的豁免权的批评,参见James L. Swanson, Copyright vs. the First Amendment: Forecasting an End to the Storm, 7 Loy. Ent. L.J. 263 1987.
    357 Nozick, Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. pp. 28-32.
    358 Ronald Dworkin, Rights as Trumps,载于Jeremy Waldron, Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. p153.
    370洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第5页。
    371洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第77页。
    372洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第79-80。
    373洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第133-134。
    374这里采用了李道揆《美国政府与政治》一书中的译文(北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990版。第746页)。
    375 Jeremy Waldron, The Decline of Natural Rights, New York University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 09-38. PDF, p25-26. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1416966. Leonard Levy也指出,《独立宣言》和美国宪法都是以社会契约论、自然权利理论和有限政府论为核心的政治哲学的产物。转引自Edward J. Erler, The Great Fence to Liberty: The Right to Property in the American Founding,载于Ellen Frankel Paul & Howard Dickman (ed.), Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. p45.
    376 John Phillip Reid, The Authority of Rights at the American Founding,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. p81.
    377 Rogers M. Smith, The Politics of Rights Talk, Then and Now,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. p309; Barry A. Shain, Rights Natural and Civil in the Declaration of Independence,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. p144. Smith指出,“自然权利”与“自然法”两词或类似术语在1790年代之后就淡出了各州宪法,而且《美国宪法》文本也未出现类似术语。然而,如果我们紧扣自然权利理论的内涵或其精神实质来解读《美国宪法》的话,则其明显地浸润着自然权利的汁液。
    378 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp34-38
    379 Gordon S. Wood, The History of Rights in Early America,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. P243.
    380 Daniel T. Rodgers, Rights Consciousness in American History,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. P266.
    381 Daniel T. Rodgers, Rights Consciousness in American History,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. P268.
    382 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. P88.
    383 Daniel T. Rodgers, Rights Consciousness in American History,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. P270-271.关于自然权利理论在整个19世纪中的衰落,详见Jeremy Waldron, The Decline of Natural Rights, New York University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 09-38. PDF, pp8-19.
    384 Rogers M. Smith, The Politics of Rights Talk, Then and Now,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. pp317-318.
    385 Rogers M. Smith, The Politics of Rights Talk, Then and Now,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. p318.
    386 Louis Henkin, The Age of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
    387 John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. pp198-199.
    389事实上,《世界人权宣言》在其起源与精神实质上都可以说是一个美国式的文本。Leif Wenar and Stephen Macedo, The Diversity of Rights in Contemporary Ethical and Political Thought,载于Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. p282.
    390 Jeremy Waldron, The Decline of Natural Rights, New York University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 09-38. PDF, p30.
    391 Alan Gewirth, Self-Fulfillment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998. p160.
    392 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p4.
    393 Jeremy Waldron, The Decline of Natural Rights, New York University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 09-38. PDF, p26-27.
    394关于美国版权法的非功利主义特征,详见David McGowan, Copyright Nonconsequentialism, 69 Missouri Law Review. 1 2004.
    395“人们既然都是平等和独立的,任何人就不得侵害他人的生命、健康、自由或财产。”洛克:《政府论》,
    397 Barbara Arneil, John Locke and America: The Defense of English Colonialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p169
    398 Hastings Rashdall语,转引自Gopal Sreenivasan, The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. p3.
    399 C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. pp. 220-221.
    400 Gopal Sreenivasan, The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. p3.
    401 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. p138.
    402洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第18页。
    403这里使用的是普芬多夫的定义。Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. pp.154-155.
    404洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第18页。
    405洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第18-19页。
    406洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第20页。
    407 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. pp.152-153. Waldron强调指出,尽管洛克承认政治社会可以也应该规范私人财产权,但私人财产权的合法性基础——个人在自然状态中的劳动——仍然先于政治社会。
    408洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第19页。
    409个人拥有自己的身体并不意味着个人不再是上帝的创造物,而是指除了上帝之外没有任何上帝的创造物能够拥有另外一个上帝的创造物。Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. p178.
    410 Lawrence C. Becker, The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition, 73 The Journal of Philosophy. 654 1976; Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. pp.172-173.
    411洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第25、27、29页。
    412洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第22-23。
    413洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第28-29页。
    414 Lawrence C. Becker, The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition, 73 The Journal of Philosophy. 655-656 1976.
    415洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第22-23页。
    416 Lawrence C. Becker, The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition, 73 The Journal of Philosophy. 660 1976. Alan Ryan也对洛克的财产自然权利理论做出了偏向于“劳动应得论”的读解,参见其Property and Political Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1984. p33.但Jeremy Waldron认为洛克的文本其实并不支持这一“劳动应得论”,尽管他也不得不承认这一读解是广为接受的一种流行观点。参见其The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. p201-207.无论如何,利用洛克财产自然权利理论来为版权提供合法性根据的学者们以及法官们似乎更偏向于“劳动应得论”,这也许是因为“劳动应得论”本身所具有的对创作者劳动的尊重更体现了对人的尊重这一当代自由民主社会的核心价值。
    417另一条非后果主义辩护路径是黑格尔的“人格体现论”,见Justin Hughes,“The Philosophy of Intellectual Property”, 77 Geo. L. J. 287 1988-1989. Hughes甚至认为,知识产权只有两种道德基础,要么建基于劳动要么建基于人格,否则就是建基于偷窃(见该文第290页)。所谓后果主义在这里是指授予知识财产权的根据是为了产生某种可欲的社会性后果,功利主义版权观正是其代表。
    418 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1540 1992-1993; Neil Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. PDF, pp.21-25; Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal. 529-531 1990.
    419 Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L. J. 306 1988-1989; Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1549 1992-1993.
    420 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1542-1543 1992-1993.
    421洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第19页。
    422洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第21页。
    423 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of
    426在《许可证法案》于1694年停颁之后,英国书籍出版商就已经失去了其赖以维持行业垄断的皇家特权,而《安妮法案》则彻底终结了他们重获皇家特权的迷梦,因其直接目的正是终结书籍出版商的行业垄断。Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p143.
    427 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p153.
    428 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p170.
    429 Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. p15.
    430 Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. p24.
    431 Ronan Deazley认为Donaldson一案的多数派判决其实并没有承认作者拥有任何——出版前与出版后——普通法版权,将该案的判决理解为作者的未出版作品享有普通法版权保护而该权利在作品出版后即被《安妮法案》所取代是一种误读(Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. 23-24)。然而Deazley也承认,这一误读至今仍被当作正读而被当代的主流版权法理论所接受。事实上,这一误读本身只怕就证明了自然权利理念的渗透性与蛊惑力,因为普通法版权的核心正是作者基于智力劳动而享有其智力劳动成果这一自然权利。就此而言,美国《1976年版权法案》将版权的起始时间定为作品在某载体上固定下来之时正表明了普通法版权(基于作者的创造行为)而不是制定法版权(在1976年以前基于作品的出版)的胜利。
    432 Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. p28.
    433 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p180.
    434 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p184.
    435 L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. p118-119.另见L. Weinreb, Copyright for Functional Expression, 111 Harvard Law Review. 1211-1214 1998.
    436 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p186.
    437 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p186-187.
    438 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p194.
    439 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p197.
    440 Patterson自己也对这一极其突然的转变感到颇为迷惑。Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p200.
    441 Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p210.这里要指出的是,法官Smith Thompson的“劳动应得论”带有明显的功利主义特质。
    442Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. p169.
    443法官John MeLean在Weaton一案中的观点。转引自Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. p209. Alfred C. Yen认为其实该案也传达了版权自然权利观念,不过该案更强调了自然法对这一自然权利的限制。Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal. 550 1990.
    444 John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 486 2004-2005.
    445 Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342. PDF, p3, 6, 8. http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/Pdf/case-folsom.marsh.pdf.另见John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 487-489 2004-2005.
    446 John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 489 2004-2005.另参见John Tehranian, Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and an Intermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 1201, 1210 (2005).
    447 Hannibal Travis, Pirates of the Information Infrastructure: Blackstonian Copyright and the First Amendment, 15 BERKELEY TECH. L. & J. 777 2000.
    448 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal. 519 1990.
    449 347 U.S. 219 (1954).
    450 Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L. J. 303 1988-1989; William Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property,载于Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp.173-174.
    451 James Morgan, The Law of Literature. New York: Cockcroft&Co, 1875. Vol 2, p3; Vol 1, pp.1-6.转引自Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. pp.171-172.
    452 E.S. Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1879. pp.16-17, 20, 26.转引自Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. pp.172-173.
    453 Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. pp.175.
    454 Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. p171.
    455 Nimmer on Copyright,§2.02 and 2-26.转引自Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. pp.175-176.该书首卷出版于1963年,LexisNexis称该书“拥有最高的法院引用率”。http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog/booktemplate/productdetail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=10441.
    456 Neil Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 07-34. PDF, pp.21-25.
    459 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1539 1992-1993.
    460 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p178.
    461 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1567 1992-1993.
    462 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1556-1557 1992-1993.话语博弈与自我实现为本文作者的行文,Gordon原文中并无。
    463 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1567-1570 1992-1993.
    464 John. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Edited by Peter Laslett). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p170.
    465 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1555, 1570 1992-1993.
    466 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1561 1992-1993.
    467 Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1563-1564 1992-1993.
    468 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal. 523 1990.
    469 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal. 524 1990.诺齐克也有一个表明类似观点的著名比喻:如果某人将一罐番茄酱倒入大海,那么即便所有的番茄原子都与海水均匀地相混,这个人也还是失去了他的劳动成果,而不是拥有整个大海。Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p175.
    470 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal, 537-538 1990.
    471 Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 Ohio State Law Journal, 552-557 1990.
    472 Jeremy Waldron对洛克财产自然权理论中的这一神学预设也有过很精当的归纳。Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. pp.141-147.
    473 Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property,载于Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp.143-154.
    474 Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property,载于Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. p147.
    475就劳动决定了劳动成果的归属这一洛克财产自然权利理论的核心而言,Shiffrin的这一读解在本质上仍然没有脱离“劳动应得论”,因为她仍然承认劳动者比非劳动者更应该获得劳动成果的所有权。
    476 Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property,载于Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp.156-157.
    477 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p150. Zemer在其书中仍然做出了这方面的努力,而且由于其交叉运用了《论出版自由》以及《人类理解论》这两种文献中洛克直接论述知识财产的观点来为其论证提供支撑,他也确实做出了一些新的理论贡献。然而,由于他毕竟还是围绕着劳动以及两条私有财产权的限制条件(“留有足够多和好”以及“不得浪费”)来结构其论述,因此相对于Wendy Gordon而言,他在这方面的贡献只具有边际累进而不是突飞猛进的意义。本文因此跳过Zemer书中有关这方面的论述,而集中于其运用洛克上述两种文献的分析。
    478 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p153.
    479 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p155.
    
    480 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. pp.154-157.
    481 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p177.
    482 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. pp. 178-183.
    483 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. pp. 184-185.
    484 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p184-186.
    485 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p186.
    486 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. pp.228-229.
    487 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. p231.
    488 Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007. pp.222-225.
    489 Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. pp. 38-40, 159-161.
    492 Randal C. Picker, Fair Access v. Fair Use, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 603 2007-2008; Jane C. Ginsburg, From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: The Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law, Columbia Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, No. 8, pp. 5-10.
    493 DMCA, Section 1201(a)(1)(A).
    494 Wendy Gordon的这一进路造成了这样一种反直觉的后果:一部作品的社会影响力越大(价值越大)反而会受到越少的版权保护。就此而言,创作具有社会影响力之作品的作者比作品湮没无闻的作者更容易成为他人的工具——因为受到更少的版权保护。此外,如果作品影响力大就应少受保护以确保次级创作者的创作自由,那么影响力小的作品呢?难道次级创作者就不利用影响力小的作品了吗?影响力大小究竟根据什么标准来判定呢?谁来判定呢?法官还是文学评论家?又或者是大众?
    495 Shiffrin的这一主张其实已经跨入了功利主义进路——实现言论生产最大化/观点多元化这一社会性目标——的领域了。
    496 Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. p24.美国产权法体系中确实有在必要情形下可以绕过私有财产所有者专有排他性使用权的相关规定,但对“必要情形”的界定却相当严格,比如自然灾害或迷路荒野之类,因此一个生活在相对富裕地区的人不能仅仅因为腹中饥饿就闯进超市拿起食品就大吃特吃。Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. p75.
    497《世界人权宣言》将“公民文化参与权”直接写进了其第27条第一款,而学者Orit Fischman Afori则主张这一权利应该作为一种自然权利/人权而纳入美国版权法系。参见其Human Rights and Copyrigh: The Introduction of Natural Law Considerations into American Copyright Law, 14 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 497.不过,从版权自然权利进路的视角来看,这一权利其实早就存在于美国版权法体系之中,问题不是“引入”,而是“重申”。
    498 John. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Edited by Peter Laslett). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p170.在这样一种社会条件下,Gordon的伤害原则只能为盗版商提供合法性借口:他们为无法(不愿?)通过合法途径看到像Titanic这样具有巨大影响的文化产品的公众提供了避难处!
    499 Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press? 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1191-1199 1969-1970.
    500 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p61.
    501洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第6页。
    502 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp.5, 11.
    503 Adrian Liu, Copyright as Quasi-Public Property: Reinterpreting the Conflict Between Copyright and the First Amendment, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 383 2008.。本文虽然也使用了这一概念,但对版权产品“公共论坛性”的解释并不同于Adrian Liu..
    504 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p8.
    505洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第6页。详见本文第三章对自然权利的论述。此外,对这一基本权利互相制衡的强调,也可参见Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. pp.8-9.
    506这一思路源自Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.p2.
    507 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.7-11.
    508 C. Edwin Baker断然否认真理的客观性,参见其Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.12-13.
    509 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.14-16.
    510 Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p128.
    511 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p26.
    512 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p29
    513 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p25; C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.17-18.
    514 Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.pp.46-48; C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p28.
    515 Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p133.关于规则功利主义的这一特点,参见David Lyons, Utility and Rights,载于Jeremy Waldron, Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. pp. 110-136.
    516 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp.39-40.其实,当衡量结果的标准变成了本身就带有强烈价值判断意味的“合理”或者“有效”(对谁合理对谁有效?),而不再是客观真理性之时,我们又怎样衡量最终得出的“政策”是“最佳政策”呢?
    517 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp.19-20.
    518 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p31.
    519 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. p.88.
    520 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p36.
    521 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. p.9.
    522 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp.40-41; Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p137.
    523关于这一悖论,另可参见Corey Brettschneider, Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government. Princeton University Press, 2007. p2.
    524 Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p446.
    525 Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993. pp152-154.
    526 Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp.138-139.
    527 Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p.141.
    529可参见Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Chapter 2.
    530 Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon, Cultural Politics: Class, Gender, Race and the Postmodern World. Wiley-Blackwell, 1995. p.4. Meiklejohn和Sustein两人对大众传媒产品的精英主义式的歧视充分表明了这一点。参见Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Governmen.. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. p104; Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993. p23.
    531 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p86.
    532 Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. p.41; Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. pp.200-201.
    534对言论自由自我实现论较为详细的概述,参见第一章中的相关内容。
    535 Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. pp.200-201; C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p53.
    536 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. p271.
    537 C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. p69.
    538参见C. Edwin Baker对“强迫性言论”的界定与分析, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. pp.56-60.
    
    539 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. pp.190-192,198.
    540 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. pp. 193, 200-201.在
    542关于“平等主义”的概述,参见Richard Arneson,“Egalitarianism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    543 Louis P. Pojman and Robert Westmoreland, Equality: Selected Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. pp. 1-2.
    544 Richard Arneson,“Egalitarianism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.另见Thomas Nagel, Equality,载于Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams (ed.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. pp. 66-69.
    547转引自A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. p82.
    548 A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. p83.
    549 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p37; Allen W. Wood, Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 88-92.
    550 Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 46-47; Alan Gewirth, Self-Fulfillment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. pp. 168-169.
    551 Allen W. Wood, Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. p.94; Allen W. Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp.120-121; Thomas E. Hill, Jr. Humanity as an End in Itself. 91 Ethics. 86 (Oct., 1980); James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. pp. 131-132.
    552 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977. pp. 272-273.
    553 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p26.
    554 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p32.
    555 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. p409.
    556洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第5页。
    557 A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. pp. 81-84.
    558 Allen W. Wood, Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 91, 94; Allen W. Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 120-121.
    559 Allen W. Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 133-134.
    560 Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 46-47.
    561 Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 48-50.
    562 Joel Feinberg, Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980. p151; Warren Quinn, Morality and Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. p170; Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. p39.
    563 Leif Wenar,“Rights”, 2.1.8, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    564 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp. 87, 97, 122.
    565 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p128.
    566 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp.125-126.
    568 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp. 52, 54, 123.
    569 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919. p38; William A. Edmundson, An Introduction to Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p90; Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p 83.
    570 Warren Quinn, Morality and Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. p170.
    571这里的个人努力实际上是积极要求他人提供为实现个人人生计划所必需的物品这一积极权利的对立面,因此个人努力并不否定个人可以获得他人自愿的赠与,但却没有要求他人必须提供的权利。
    572 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. pp. 120-124, 129-130.
    573 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p131.
    574 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p111.
    575这一古典浪漫主义理念在当代粉丝群体中获得了一种跨越世纪的证明:当粉丝们与其他粉丝交换个人创作的作品之时,他们的感觉就好像是在做一个重大的生活抉择。参见Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal. 657 (1997).
    576 Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. pp.79-84.
    577这就是Alan Gewirth所提出的“一般连贯原则”(principle of generic consistency),详见Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. pp. 50-54.这一原则明显源自康德,参见Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p37以及Allen W. Wood, Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp.92-93.
    578 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p38.译文转引自李泽厚《批判哲学的批判》(安徽文艺出版社,1994年)第303页。
    579 Isaiah Berlin, Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. pp.183-184.
    580Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p33; Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p99.
    581 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p50.
    582 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p33.
    583 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p54.
    584在这一点上,功利主义(后果主义的代表)似乎与康德式非后果主义殊途同归,参见Richard A. Epstein, Supreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection for Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p9.
    585 Christine M. Korsgaard,“An Introduction”,载于Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pp. xxiii-xxv; Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. p54.
    586 Christine M. Korsgaard,“An Introduction”,载于Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. p.xxii.
    587 Allen W. Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p117.
    588 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p238.
    589 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. pp. 28-30.诺齐克自己对“权利功利主义”在某些极端情形下的适用性持一种模棱两可的态度(p30)。
    590对于这一个人基本权利之间的平等在解决个人权利冲突时所具有的优先性,可参见Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 58-59.
    591 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p171.
    593 Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000. p42.
    594 N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics.北京:机械工业出版社,1998。第220页。
    595 Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000. p43; N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics.北京:机械工业出版社,1998。第220页。第224页。
    596 Gillian K. Hadfield, The Economics of Copyright: An Historical Perspective. 38 Copyright L. Symp. 33 1992.
    597 Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Public Good Economics: A Misunderstood Relation. 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 635, 659 2007.该文援引萨缪尔森的公共产品经济学理论对通行的版权产品公共产品特性(非竞争性与非排斥性)的分析提出了挑战,认为公共产品的根本特征在于其消费者拥有隐藏其对该产品的偏好强度的动机与能力。本文无力也无暇介入这一论争,因此仍旧采用以Richard Posner为代表的通行观点。
    598 Michael A. Einhorn, Media, Technology and Copyright: Integrating Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004. p47.
    599关于私有性产品与公共产品之间的对比,参见Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000. p106.事实上,许多学者都已经指出了文化/知识产品市场在没有版权保护的情形下也能发展起来的种种理由乃至经验证明。最近出版的一本阐述该观点的专著是Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
    600 William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. 18 J. Legal Stud. 325,
    326 1989; Robert M. Hurt and Robert M. Schuchman, The Economic Rationale of Copyright. 56 The American Economic Review, 421, 427 1966; Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000. p109.
    602 William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. 18 J. Legal Stud. 325, 326 1989.
    603 Wendy J. Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the“Betamax”Case and Its Predecessors. 82 Columbia Law Review. 1600, 1612 1982.
    604关于垄断价格与边际成本价格的差异,参见N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics.北京:机械工业出版社,1998。第311-313页。
    605 Harold Demsetz, The Private Production of Public Goods, 13 J. Law & Economics, 293 1970; Gillian K. Hadfield, The Economics of Copyright: An Historical Perspective. 38 Copyright L. Symp. 2, 41-42 1992.
    606汉密尔顿,杰伊和麦迪逊:《联邦党人文集》(程逢如,在汉和舒逊译)。北京:商务印书馆,1995年。第220页。
    610 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization. 307 U.S. 516-517.译文采用邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第386页。
    611 Robert C. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum. 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1718 1986-1987.
    612 Harry Kalven, The Concept of Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana. 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 11-12 1965.译文采用邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第387页。
    613 Robert C. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum. 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1724 1986-1987.
    614 Adrian Liu, Copyright as Quasi-Public Property: Reinterpreting the Conflict Between Copyright and the First
    617 Fichte, Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793), p447, 450. Translated by Martha Woodmansee. Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org.
    618 Maurizio Borghi, Owning Form, Sharing Content: Natural-Right Copyright and Digital Environment, Fiona Macmillan (ed.), New Directions in Copyright Law, Volume 5, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar (2007) p210.
    619 Fichte, Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793), pp. 448. Translated by Martha Woodmansee. Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org.
    620 Fichte, Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793), pp. 450-451. Translated by Martha Woodmansee. Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org.
    621 Fichte, Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793), pp. 455-456. Translated by Martha Woodmansee. Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org.
    622 Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (ed.), Literary Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. pp. 129-130.
    623欧洲大陆法系与英美普通法系对作者精神权利的延伸范围和道德强度的不同界定便是最明显的例证。
    624 Stuart Hall, Encoding/Decoding,载于Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. pp. 171-173.这其实是承认读者文本阐释权的必然逻辑结果,因为阐释本身所内含的多元指向性正囊括了这种种解读可能性,这在大众文化作品中更是如此(详见本文第一章第三节)。于是,以作者精神权利为名阻止版权作品使用者对原作品进行令原作者深恶痛绝的解读就是对精神权利的滥用。
    625 Abraham Drassinower, A Rights-Based View of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 16 Can. J. L. & Jurisprudence 9-10, 2003.
    626 Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (1989-1990).
    629 Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 55, 2004
    632通过对原作的再语境化,即便是全盘复制也可能产生全新的转换性作品。Laura A. Heymann, Everything is Transformative: Fair Use and Reader Response, 31 Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 455 2008.北京:北京大学出版社,2005。第289页。
    634 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. p. xii.
    635 Calvin Massey, Public Fora, Neutral Governments and the Prism of Property. 50 Hastings L. J. 309. 1998-1999.
    636 James W. Ely, Jr, Property Rights and Free Speech: Allies or Enemies?, in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Freedom of Speech. Cambridge University Press, 2004. p191; Robert A. Sedler, Propertyand Speech, 21 Journal of Law and Policy, 133, 2006.政府当然有权在紧急情况下进入民宅,但其理由与言论自由没有关系,比如防止火灾或者犯罪之类。参见本注第一篇引文。
    637 Robert C. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum. 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1715-16 1986-1987; Calvin Massey, Public Fora, Neutral Governments and the Prism of Property.
    50 Hastings L. J. 310. 1998-1999; Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p275.
    638 Calvin Massey, Public Fora, Neutral Governments and the Prism of Property. 50 Hastings L. J. 309-310. 1998-1999; Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p265;邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第421-422页。
    641 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 504-505.
    642 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 505-507.部分译文引自邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第389页。
    643 Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 311-314.
    644 Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 316.
    645 Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 317.
    646 Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 318-321.
    647 Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 318-319.
    648邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第390页。
    
    652 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 563.
    653 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 564.
    654 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 565-566.
    655 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 567-568.
    656 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 565-567.
    
    
    657 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 458-470.
    658 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 510-513.
    659 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 514.
    660 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 515.
    661 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 519.
    662 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 521.
    663邱小平,《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。第402页。
    664 Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p278, 280.不过该书并没有提及邱小平所指出的例外情形,而是强调公民在进入大型购物中心进行有关任何内容的言论表达都要事先获得购物中心所有者的同意。然而那怕只根据Lloyd一案中“在言论表达者有充足的其它渠道进行表达的情形下,要求这类物业必须允许公民在其中行使言论自由权既是对私有财产权的不当侵犯,又没有明显地推动言论自由权的行使”这一段话来看,该书的归纳是有缺陷的。
    665 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 587.
    666 Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 581-582.
    667 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 78-79.
    668 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 79-80.这里有两点值得一提。首先,之前的四个案例都没有全票通过,1972年的Lloyd一案(标志着最高法院在这一议题上的保守回撤,参见Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p278)的多数派与少数派之间更是只有一票之差;其次,撰写该案之法院决议的Rehnquist法官是著名的更为重视私人财产权的保守分子,其在1972年被尼克松总统任命为最高法院大法官以及在1986年被里根总统任命为最高法院首席大法官就是当时美国政治整体右转这一趋势在最高法院法官人员构成中的体现,参见James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 152-153.
    669 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 82.
    670 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 83-84.
    671 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 84-85.
    672 PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 88.
    673 Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001. p280; James W. Ely, Jr, Property Rights and Free Speech: Allies or Enemies?,载于Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Freedom of Speech. Cambridge University Press, 2004. p183.
    674 Adrian Liu, Copyright as Quasi-Public Property: Reinterpreting the Conflict Between Copyright and the First Amendment, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 437-438 2008.
    675 John Tehranian, John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 465 (2004-2005);John tehranian, Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and an Intermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review 1201 2005.在最近的一宗涉及版权与言论自由权之争的最高法院案例中,法官Ginsburg明确指出:“当某人声称其有权利用他人的言论时,宪法第一修正案的适用性就降低了”。这可以说是对版权言论所具有的私有财产本质的一种曲线式承认。参见Adrian Liu, Copyright as Quasi-Public Property: Reinterpreting the Conflict Between Copyright and the FirstAmendment, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 399 2008.
    
    677 Alan Ryan, Property and Political Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1984. p17.
    678洛克:《政府论下篇》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第45、112、117页。
    679洛克:《政府论下篇》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第31页;Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. p219.
    680洛克:《政府论下篇》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。第118页; Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. p158.
    681 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p58.
    682 17 U.S.C§302.
    683 Barbara A. Ringer, Renewal of Copyright, 1 Studies on Copyright, 617(1963).
    684威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。第271-272页。
    685 Brief of Amici Curiae George A. Akerlof et al., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
    686从《1790年版权法案》到《1909年版权法案》,美国版权法体系都保留了强制性版权登记与续展制度,但《1976年版权法案》取消了这两项规定,尽管该法案仍旧设置了若干鼓励创作者自愿登记的条款。17 U.S.C§408; Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright, 57 Stanford Law Review, 493-495 (2004).
    687这实际上等于是增强了创作者保护版权的自主性,或者说内化了其保护个人财产的必要成本。
    688威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。第8章。
    689 David McGowan, Why the First Amendment Cannot Dictate Copyright Policy, 65 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 285-286. 2003-2004.
    697 David Vogel, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 2005. pp. 1-2.
    698事实上这种情形发生的可能性本来就极小。一方面,既然公众能够从媒体网站上获取这些作品,那么他们复制与传播的动力就大大减弱了:提供链接岂不是更方便?另一方面,传媒企业也缺乏经济上的动力,因为这类作品的盈利源主要在于其新闻性而不是版权。
    699 Stuart Allan, Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2006. p152.拍摄肯尼迪遇刺录像的Abraham Zapruder就是位于事发现场的一个普通观众。Zapruder是一位服饰制造商,肯尼迪遇刺时他正好在现场用手提摄像机拍家庭录像。不过他并没有免费向公众(通过大众媒介比如电视台)提供该录像,而是将其版权卖给了时代集团旗下的《生活》杂志。Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
    700 Ian Burrell,“On the Front Line”, The Independent, 3 January, 2005. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/on-the-front-line-486791.html.
    701例如,在2005年7月英国伦敦地铁恐怖袭击之后的几个小时内,BBC就收到了超过1000张照片,20个视频,4000个短信以及2万封电子邮件。事实上,在第一轮爆炸发生几分钟之后就有人向BBC传送这些信息了,而当时BBC还不知道发生了恐怖事件。Stuart Allan, Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2006. pp. 147-148.
    702 Stuart Allan, Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2006. p155.当然也有人趁机牟利,据称英国天空电视台就曾为了获得某张照片的专有使用权而支付给该照片的拍摄者250英镑。但即便如此,这张照片也仍然获得了公布。
    703 Stuart Allan, Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2006.特别是第8章.
    704 Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press? 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1191-1199 (1969-1970).学者Alexandra Couto也持类似的观点,参见其Copyright and Freedom of Expression: A Philosophical Map.载于Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, and Alain Strowel, Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. pp.163-170,
    705 Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press? 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1203 (1969-1970).
    706 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 459 (2d Cir. 2001).
    716 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974. pp. 268-270.
    112 The Yale Law Journal, 57 (2002);(自然权利) Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1576 (1992-1993); (法律与经济学)Michael A. Einhorn, Media, Technology and Copyright: Integrating Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004. p37.
    720 Michael A. Einhorn, Media, Technology and Copyright: Integrating Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004. p33.
    721 Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, Property Rules versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 Harvard Law Review, 715 (1995-1996).
    722 Michael A. Einhorn, Media, Technology and Copyright: Integrating Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004. p32.
    723 Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 The Yale Law Journal, 58 (2002)
    724这也是学者John Tehranian所提出的“中级责任方案”所导致的结果,见其Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and an Intermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review, 1244 (2005)
    725 Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, The Soul of Creativity: Forging a Moral Rights Law for the United States. Stanford:
    726 Eric E. Bensen, The Visual Artists’Rights Act of 1990: Why Moral Rights Cannot Be Protected under the United States Constitution. 24 Hofstra Law Review, 1139-1140 (1995-1996).
    727 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 50-51.
    728 Robert C. Bird and Lucille M. Ponte, Protecting Moral Rights in the United States and the United Kingdom: Challenges and Opportunities under the U.K.’s New Performances Regulations. 24 Boston University International Law Journal, 247-261 (2006).但实际上美国法院对复制权和衍生作品创作权的宽泛界定完全可以被看作是一种变相的对版权作品完整性的保护。难怪Patterson认为随着版权覆盖领域的扩大,美国版权法其实已经将作者的精神权利纳入了实证法之中,只不过受益者往往是拥有版权的出版商而已。Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968. pp. 218-219.
    729 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p215.
    730 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 51-52.
    1,柯武刚,史漫飞:《制度经济学——社会秩序与公共政策》,韩朝华译。北京:商务印书馆,2002。
    2,科斯,阿尔钦,诺斯等:《财产权利与制度变迁——产权学派与新制度学派译文集》。上海:上海三联书店,1994。
    3,洛克:《政府论》,叶启芳,瞿菊农译。北京:商务印书馆,1997。密尔顿·弗里德曼:《资本主义与自由》,张瑞玉译。北京:商务印书馆,2004。
    4,邱小平:《表达自由——美国宪法第一修正案研究》。北京:北京大学出版社,2004。
    5,王希:《原则与妥协——美国宪法的精神与实践》。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。
    6,威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译。北京:北京大学出版社,2005。
    7,约翰·密尔:《论自由》,程崇华译。北京:商务印书馆,1996。
    1, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
    2, Alan Dershowitz, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. New York: Basic Books, 2005.
    3, Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
    4, Alan Gewirth, Self-Fulfillment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
    5, Alan Mckee, The Public Sphere: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
    6, Alan Ryan, Property and Political Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1984.
    7, Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948.
    8, Allen W. Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
    9, Allen W. Wood, Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
    10, Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams(ed), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
    11, Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, and Alain Strowel (ed.), Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
    12, Barry Alan Shain (ed.), The Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007.
    13, C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
    14, Cass R Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
    15, Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
    16, Corey Brettschneider, Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government. Princeton University Press, 2007.
    17, Cornel Sandvoss, Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Polity, 2005.
    18, D.F.B. Tucker, Law, Liberalism and Free Speech. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985.
    19, David M. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
    19, David Vogel, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 2005.
    20, Fichte, Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting (1793), Translated by: Martha Woodmansee. Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org.
    21, Francis Oakley, Natural Law, Laws of Nature, Natural Rights. New York: Continuum, 2005
    22, Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
    23, Gillian Davies, Copyright and the Public Interest. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002.
    24, Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon (ed.), Cultural Politics: Class, Gender, Race and the Postmodern World. Wiley-Blackwell, 1995.
    25, Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (7th Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
    26, Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009.
    27, Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
    28, Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Media Consumers in a Digital Age. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
    29, Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson and Jane Shattuc (ed.), Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture. Duke University Press, 2003.
    30, Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992.
    31, Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the metaphysics of Morals. Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
    32, Ian Shapiro, The Evolution of Rights in Liberal Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986
    33, Ioannis G. Dimitrakopoulos, Individual Rights and Liberties under the U.S. Constitution: The Case Law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
    34, Isaiah Berlin, Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002..
    35, James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
    36 James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    37, Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Malden: Polity Press, 2009.
    38, Jeff Ulin, The Business of Media Distribution: Monetizing Film, TV, and Video Content. Oxford: Focal Press, 2010.
    39, Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
    40, Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
    41, Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books, 2006.
    42, Joel Feinberg, Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980.
    43, John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 1989.
    44, John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
    45, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
    46, John Street, Politics and Popular Culture. Temple University Press, 1997.
    47, Joke Hermes, Re-reading Popular Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
    48, Jonathan Griffiths and Uma Suthersanen (ed.), Copyright and Free Speech: Comparative and International Analyses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
    49, Kazys Varnelis, Networked Publics. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008.
    50, L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users’Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991.
    51, Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
    52, Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.
    53, Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce thrive in the Hybrid Economy. The Penguin Press, 2008.
    54, Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965
    55, Lior Zemer, The Idea of Authorship in Copyright. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007.
    56, Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
    57, Louis P. Pojman and Robert Westmoreland (ed.), Equality: Selected Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
    58, Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press, 1968.
    59, Mark A. Graber, Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
    60, Matt Hills, Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002.
    61, Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams (ed.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.
    62, Matthew Rimmer, Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands off My iPod. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2007.
    63, Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
    64, Michael A. Einhorn, Media, Technology and Copyright: Integrating Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004.
    65, Michael P. Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994
    66, Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.
    67, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
    68, N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics.北京:机械工业出版社,1998。
    69, Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    70, Owen M. Fiss, Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.
    71, Paul Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.
    72, Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Dartmouth, 1996.
    73, Richard A. Epstein, Supreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection for Private Property. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    74, Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
    75, Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000.
    76, Robert E. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
    77, Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, 1974.
    78, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, The Soul of Creativity: Forging a Moral Rights Law for the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010
    79, Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
    80, Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1977.
    81, Ronald V. Bettig, Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. Colorado: Westview Press, 1996.
    82, Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.
    83, Rosemary J. Coombe, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties. Duke University Press, 1998.
    84, Samuel P. Nelson, Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
    85, Stephen R. Munzer, New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    86, Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
    87, Stuart Allan, Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2006.
    88, Tarleton Gillespie, Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culure.Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007.
    89, Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Random House, 1970.
    90, Thomas Jefferson, Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    91, Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College: Strata Publishing, 2001.
    92, Tim Mulgan, Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007.
    93, Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
    94, William A. Edmundson, An Introduction to Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    95, William W. FisherⅢ,Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.
    96, Zechariah Chafee, Free Speech in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946.
    1, Abraham Drassinower, A Rights-Based View of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 16 Can. J. L. & Jurisprudence 3 2003.
    2, Adam D. Moore, A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property, 21 Hamline L. Rev. 65 1997-1998.
    3, Adrian Liu, Copyright as Quasi-Public Property: Reinterpreting the Conflict between Copyright and the First Amendment, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 383 2008.
    4, Alexander Meikeljohn, The First Amendment Is An Absolute. 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245 (1961)
    5, Alfred C. Yen, Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51Ohio State Law Journal, 1990.
    6, Amy B. Cohen, When Does a Work Infringe the Derivative Works Right of a Copyright Owner? 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 623 (1999).
    7, Andrew S. Long, Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the FA Values of Transformative Video, 60 Oklahoma Law Review, 317. 2007.
    8, Benjamin Ely Marks, Copyright Protection, Privacy Rights, and the Fair Use Doctrine: The Post-Salinger Decade Reconsidered. 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1376 (1997)
    9, Calvin Massey, Public Fora, Neutral Governments and the Prism of Property. 50 Hastings L.J. 309 1998-1999.
    10, Christina Bohannan, Taming the Derivative Works Right: A Modest Proposal for Reducing Overbreadth and Vagueness in Copyright, 12 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 669 (2010)
    11, Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Democracy: A Cautionary Note, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1933 2000.
    12, Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Public Good Economics: A Misunderstood Relation. 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 635 2007.
    13, Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright, 57 Stanford Law Review, 485 (2004).
    14, Daniel Gervais, The Tangled Web of UGC: Making Copyright Sense of User-Generated Content. 11 Vanderbilt J. Of Ent. And Tech. Law, 841 2009.
    15, David McGowan, Copyright Nonconsequentialism, 69 Missouri Law Review, 1 2004.
    16, David McGowan, Why the First Amendment Cannot Dictate Copyright Policy, 65 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 281 2003-2004.
    17, Eric E. Bensen, The Visual Artists’Rights Act of 1990: Why Moral Rights Cannot Be Protected under the United States Constitution. 24 Hofstra Law Review. 1127 (1995-1996).
    18, Edward J. Erler, The Great Fence to Liberty: The Right to Property in the American Founding,载于Ellen Frankel Paul & Howard Dickman (ed.), Liberty,Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
    19, G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth-Century America, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 299 1996-1997.
    20, Gillian K. Hadfield, The Economics of Copyright: An Historical Perspective, 38 Copyright Law Symposium 1 1992.
    21, Harold Demsetz, Toward a Theory of Property Rights, 57 The American Economic Review, 347 (1967)
    22, Harry Kalven, The Concept of Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana. 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1 1965.
    23, Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 2004
    24, James L. Swanson, Copyright vs. the First Amendment: Forecasting an End to the Storm, 7 Loy. Ent. L.J. 263 1987
    25, James W. Ely, Jr, Property Rights and Free Speech: Allies or Enemies?, in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul (ed.), Freedom of Speech. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    26, Jane T. Dana, Copyright and Privacy Protection of Unpublished Works---The Author’s Dilemma, 13 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 351 (1977)
    27, Jean Porter, From Natural Law to Human Rights: Or, Why Rights Talk Matters, 14 Journal of Law and Religion. 77 1999-2000
    28, Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 The Yale Law Journal, 1 2002.
    29, Jeremy Waldron, The Decline of Natural Rights, New York University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 09-38
    30, Jill Gordon, John Stuart Mill and the“Marketplace of Ideas”, 23 (2) Social Theory and Practice, 235, (1997)
    31, John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural Law Copyright. 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 465 (2004-2005)
    32, John tehranian, Whither Copyright? Transformative Use, Free Speech, and anIntermediate Liability Proposal, 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review, 1201 2005.
    33, Joseph H. Hart, Free Speech on Private Property---When Fundamental Rights Collide, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1469 1989-1990.
    34, Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants or Uneasy Allies?, Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-09
    35, Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L. J. 287 1988-1989.
    36, Lawrence C. Becker, The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition, 73 The Journal of Philosophy. 653 1976
    37, L. Ray Patterson, Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1 1987.
    38, L. Weinreb, Copyright for Functional Expression, 111 Harvard Law Review. 1150 (1998)
    39, Laura A. Heymann, Everything is Transformative: Fair Use and Reader Response,
    31 Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 445 2008.
    40, Mary W. S. Wong,‘Transformative’User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?, 11 Vanderbilt J. of Ent. and Tech. Law, 1075 (2009).
    41, Maurizio Borghi, Owning Form, Sharing Content: Natural-Right Copyright and Digital Environment,载于New Directions in Copyright Law, Volume 5, Fiona Macmillan (ed.), Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar (2007) 197-222.
    42, Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press?, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180 1969-1970.
    43, Michael P. Zuckert, Do Natural Rights Derive from Natural Law?, 20 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 719 1996-1997.
    44, Naomi Abe Voegtli, Rethinking Derivative Rights, 63 Brook. L. Rev. 1213 (1997).
    45, Ned Snow, Proving Fair Use: Burden of Proof as Burden of Speech. 31 CardozoLaw Review, 1781 (2010).
    46, Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale Law Journal. 283 1996
    47, Neil Weinstock Netanel, Why Has Copyright Expanded? Analysis and Critique, Fiona Macmillan (ed.), New Directions in Copyright Law (Vol. 6). Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007.
    48, Nicolas Suzor, Transformative Use of Copyright Material. LLM Thesis, QUT School of Law, 2006.
    49, Paul Goldstein, Copyright and First Amendment, 70 Colum. L. Rev. 983 1970.
    50, R. Anthony Reese, Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 467, 2007-2008.
    51, Rebecca Tushnet, Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law. 17 Loyola of L.A. Entertainment Law Journal. 651, (1997).
    52, Robert A. Sedler, Property and Speech, 21 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 123 2006
    53, Robert C. Bird and Lucille M. Ponte, Protecting Moral Rights in the United States and the United Kingdom: Challenges and Opportunities under the U.K.’s New Performances Regulations. 24 Boston University International Law Journal, 213 (2006).
    54, Robert C. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum. 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1713 1986-1987.
    55, Robert M. Hurt and Robert M. Schuchman, The Economic Rationale of Copyright.
    56 The American Economic Review, 421 1966.
    56, Roxana Badin, An Appropriate(d) Place in Transformative Value: Appropriation Art’s Exclusion from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 60 Brook. L. Rev. 1653 (1994-1995)
    57, Sara K. Stadler, Forging a Truly Utilitarian Copyright, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 609 2005-2006.
    58, Pamela Samuelson, Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective. 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 319 2002-2003.
    59, Sonia K. Katyal, Semiotic Disobedience, 84 Washington University Law Review. 489 2006.
    60, Thomas E. Hill, Jr. Humanity as an End in Itself. Ethics, Vol. 91, No. 1 (Oct., 1980), pp. 84-99.
    61, Thomas F. Cotter, Transformative Use and Cognizable Harm. 12 Vanderbilt J. Ent. And Tech. Law, 701 (2010)
    62, Tim Wu, Tolerated Use, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts, 617 (2007-2008).
    63, Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age, Research Publication No. 2006-05, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School.
    64, Virginia Black, On Connecting Natural Rights with Natural Law, 22 Persona y Derecho. 183 1990
    65, Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L.J. 1533 (1992-1993).
    66, Wendy J. Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the“Betamax”Case and Its Predecessors. 82 Columbia Law Review. 1600-1657 1982.
    67, William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. 18 J. Legal Stud. 325 1989.
NGLC 2004-2010.National Geological Library of China All Rights Reserved.
Add:29 Xueyuan Rd,Haidian District,Beijing,PRC. Mail Add: 8324 mailbox 100083
For exchange or info please contact us via email.