科学网-美国教授驳斥方舟子狡辩：方舟子为赚钱剽窃我文章90%-肖传国的博文

切换到桌面版

美国教授驳斥方舟子狡辩：方舟子为赚钱剽窃我文章90%

2011-8-12 22:14

阅读：9272

标签：版权, 美国教授, 方舟子剽窃

美国伯恩斯坦教授回复方舟子狡辩：方舟子为赚钱抄袭我文章90% 【肖传国翻译】

From：rootbern@msu.edu

To：To: Aimee Cluo <aimeecluo@gmail.com>

Cc：smfang@yahoo.com，

svl8epa@gmail.com，

burton@msu.edu，

日期：2011年8月10日，在下午5 : 20

主题：回复：你有获得版权或许可吗？

亲爱的艾米，

现在我们开始谈正事！

请解释为什么你认为方博士使用我的文章竟然属于“合理使用”？如果他影印，翻译，或总结我的文章供他个人参阅学习是属于“合理使用”。但不论在任何情况下，复制、翻译、或复述受版权保护的作品并散布给其他人，则根本不属于受法律保护的“合理使用”，而这恰恰是方博士对我的作品所做的事情：他把我的作品粘贴到他的网站上，并在他的书中出版。更为重要的是：我知道方博士靠经营网站和当作家著书为生，因此，他使用我的文章不是为了公益或教育，而是以营利为目的。

其次，尽管各机构，如美国国家科学院，对何种行为将会构成科学欺诈均有自己的规则，但是，它们都不可能替代或凌驾于版权法之上。不管怎么说，我并不指控方博士科学欺诈，我指控他抄袭并侵权版权，这与你提到的美国国家科学院的科学欺诈规定扯不上任何关系。

三，事实上，使用他人文章内容的单词量在什么范畴内是合理合法的至少在出版业是有既定准则的。我写过很多书评，每次编辑们都反复提醒，引用书内内容要有严格限制，不得超过一定数量。这也是美国编辑们不论是在发表科普文章，或出版学术专著时都反复审核把关的问题。这是出版业的行规。人们都知道版权法中不得超过200个单词的那条规定，但往往不清楚同一条法规中还有关于按百分比限制引用他人文章内容的规定。鉴于方博士的文章绝大多数内容都是直接从我的文章获取的，我指控方博士的文章90％左右是抄袭自我的著作。

最后，我不是一个美国宪法律师，但我怀疑你对相关宪法条文的理解是完全错误的，否则任何学者都不能对其作品申请版权保护（或执行版权）。请仔细想想你要争辩的论点是什么？按照你的逻辑，你认为任何可被用于教育或者对公众有用的作品都不能享有版权。这就意味着任何人都可以复制我写的任何东西并宣布是自己的作品而其无需承担任何法律或道义上的责任。这真的是你想要争辩的事情？

伯恩斯坦

【肖传国翻译】

Please explain to me how Dr. Fang's use of my work is "fair"? Under fair use, he has the right to photocopy, translate, or summarize my article for his personal use; I know of no case in which it is considered legitimate "fair use" to reproduce a copyrighted work, translate it, or summarize it for the use of other people, which is precisely what Dr. Fang has done with my work by posting it on his website and reproducing the essay in his books. In addition, it is my understanding that Dr. Fang makes his living from his website and books and therefore that he is not using my material for a non-profit or educational purpose, but for profit.

Second, while it is true that various organizations such as the National Academy, have provided their own versions of what constitute scientific fraud, none of these directives replace or override copyright law. In any case, I have not charged Dr. Fang with scientific fraud; I have charged him with plagiarism and copyright infringement. I don't see how the National Academy guidelines are relevant.

Third, there are, in fact, guidelines, at least in the publishing industry, about how many words may be used. I have written many book reviews and have been warned many times by editors not to quote more than a certain amount of a text. This is also something that editors in the US check when one publishes a popular article in a magazine; and it is something that editors check when editing scholarly books. Whether it is law or not, it is common practice. In any case, I'm tired of the issue of 200 words -- everyone who has addressed this issue has failed to address the rest of the paragraph which is about limiting the percentage of material utilized. Since all but a handful of examples of Dr. Fang's essay are directly from my article, I am charging that Dr. Fang's article is essentially 90% (or somewhere around that percentage) my work

Finally, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I sincerely doubt that your reading of the clause in the constitution can possibly be correct or it would be impossible for any academic to ever copyright (or to enforce copyright) on any of his or her work. Please think carefully about what you are arguing here, because the logical conclusion is that you do not believe in copyrighting anything that might be of educational value or which might be used for the pubic good. That would mean anyone could copy anything I write and claim it as their own without any legal or moral protections. Is this really what you want to argue?

Root-BernStein