Aimee Cluo几乎是方舟子的一个翻版，可以窜改美国宪法为方舟子辩论，使足吃奶的劲攻击Root-Bernstein的论点，但逻辑上巅三倒四，大家都没有兴趣理睬她，但仍然喋喋不休地“纠正”Root-Berntstein的“错误观点”。针对方舟子的赖皮，Root-Bernstein含怒出手，也随便嘲笑教训了这位“中立”的支持者。
在Root-Bernstein的回信中，Aimee Cluo的原信内容并没有Root-Bernstein所嘲笑的相关内容，相关内容在我以前的博文中有介绍，她要求大家视她为“中立”，对我称她为方舟子的支持者不满。我此前回复她很温柔，全是暗讽，Root-Bernstein干脆揭开来嘲笑她，嘲笑她的同时质问方舟子的二重标准，估计是对这个无理纠缠的话唠已经是由气生怒了。
Root-Bernstein原信：(蓝色为译文）
21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）
Dear Aimee Cluo,（亲爱的Aimee Cluo）
Actions, as always, speak louder than words. You claim to be just a student trying to learn, yet you accept nothing I say as valid and ignore the counter-examples that I give to your points. You claim to have no ties to anyone involved in this controversy, yet you always attack my points and never make any criticisms of Dr. Fang's position. You have never asked Dr. Fang to reveal his definitions of plagiarism or copyright infringement. You have never used his blog posts to evaluate whether he might be using a double standard in pretending that there is no problem with the material he has borrowed from me. You never examine my case against Dr. Fang and as HIM to respond to problematic issues. So please do not continue to insult my intelligence by pretending to be just an objective and naïve observer. You aren't.
（一如既往，观行重于察言。你声称自己是一个学生，试图从中学习，然而，你否定我说的一切话，忽视我针对你的论点的反证。你声称跟此事件中的任何人没有关系，但你总是攻击我的论点，从不批评方博士的立场。你从不要求方博士出示他针对剽窃与侵犯版权的定义。你从不使用方博士最初的博文来评估他是否采用了二重标准，装着他借用我的内容无可指责。你从未细究我对方博士的指控以及他针对此不当问题的回应。因此，请不要继续侮辱我的智慧，假装成一个客观中立不带偏见的观察者。你不是。）
That said, I will attempt once more to address some of your key points, invalid as I believe them to be, because other people may learn something useful from our dialogue, even if you don't.
（说清楚了这一点，我就再一次来讨论你的一些关键要点，我不认为它们有正确性可言，但即使你油盐不进，其他人还可以从中学到东西。）
No, I do not agree that plagiarism and copyright infringement are absolutely distinct. I already gave you multiple examples of instances where they are not. Until you can demonstrate to me that my examples are invalid (which is impossible, because they involve real cases), I will continue to maintain that plagiarism and copyright infringement can, and often are, overlapping concepts administratively, legally and ethically.
（不，我不认为剽窃跟侵犯版权截然可分。我已经给你很多它们不可分的具体例子了。在你没有证明我的例子有误之前（这是不可能的，因为我举的是实例），我坚称剽窃跟侵犯版权可能，也通常从应用、到法律、到道德范规是重叠的概念。）
Secondly, you, yourself, have played a not quite legitimate game in quoting US copyright law because you do not indicate which sentences are from the law and which are your commentaries upon them. Did you really think no one would notice? Do you really think this is an honest approach to debate and learning? I don't!
（其次，你自己在引用美国版权法时就不遵守规则，你不标注哪里是原文，哪些是你的评论。你真以为别人注意不到吗？你真以为这是学习与讨论中的诚实行为？我不那么认为。）
As to fair use, you fail to understand (or perhaps don't want to understand; or perhaps hope to confuse everyone about) several important points. Fair use does not grant a person such as Dr. Fang the right to use someone else's work just because he has a non-profit educational corporation. The passages you cite from US copyright law say that these factors will be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether fair use is applicable to mitigating copyright infringement. The law also says very explicitly that one person may not profit from the sale of another person's copyrighted works. Both parts of the law must be applied to any given case. Let me give you three examples (which you will probably refuse to understand once again – but I will try!).
（说到合理使用，你没有理解（或者不想理解，或者试图蒙蔽他人）数个要点。合理使用并不给象方舟子那样的，仅仅凭拥有一个非盈利教育组织的人以使用别人作品的权利。你所引用的美国版权法的条文实际上是说这些因素会在法庭考量版权侵权程度时，是否适用合理使用原则。法律明确要求使用者不能通过销售有版权的作品而获利。这两点要同时应用到任何案例中。让我给你举三个例子（可能你会再一次拒绝理解，但我会再试一次！）。）
Fair use permits me, at my expense, to make copies of a scientific article and distribute it to a class so that we can have an educational discussion about it. In this case, I do not profit from the distribution of the work and, in the case of academic articles, it is very unlikely that I impair the profit of the journal that published the article because the students could not afford a subscription to the journal anyway.
（合理使用允许我在成本归已的情况下复制一篇科学文章发给课堂里的学生，依此针对它进行教学性的讨论。在此条件下，我不会从分发该作品中受益，对学术文章而言，我不太可能因此影响到发表该文的杂志的收益，因为学生本来就不太可能订得起该杂志。）
Fair use does NOT permit me to make copies of a scientific textbook chapter and hand them out to the class so that we can have an educational discussion about it because in this case, I am directly interfering with the ability of textbook publisher to sell copies of the book to these students, who are the primary consumer of the textbook. Even though I personally do not profit, I have harmed the ability of the textbook publisher to profit and many legal cases have decided that this is clearly copyright infringement not covered by fair use.
（合理使用不允许我复制学科的教科书的章节并将之分发给学生，依此针对它进行教学讨论，因为在这种情况下，我就会直接影响到教科书的出版商将此书销售给作为其消费主体的学生。虽然我个人并不从中获利，我伤害了书商因之盈利的能力，有许多法庭判案表明，这是明显的侵犯版权，不属于合理使用。）
I also cannot as a professor at a non-profit educational institution, under fair use, make copies of a scientific article and SELL them to students so that we can have an educational discussion because in that case I PROFIT from the work of another individual without compensating them.
（作为非盈利教学机构的教授，我也不能依据合理使用原则而复制一篇科学论文，将之售于学生，依此进行教学讨论，因为那样，我就不劳而获，以别人的作品获得收入而没有给予别人以补偿。）
These distinctions concerning how fair use is actually realized IN RELATION TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF PROFIT in individual cases is relevant because Dr. Fang is PAID a salary by his non-profit corporation and SELLS his essays and books in order to obtain the money to be paid. Whether or not Dr. Fang's corporation makes money or not, he does. I know of no legal case involving copyright infringement where courts have ruled that it is permissible for an individual within a non-profit corporation to profit by the sale of someone else’s work. If you can find such a case, please bring it to my attention!
（这些关于合理使用原则的基于版权收益保护的在个案上的实际应用跟方博士高度相关，因为方博士从他的非盈利机构获得了收入，通过销售其文章与书籍而获利。无论方博士的非盈利机构是否获得了收益，他本人都获取了收益。我不知道有任何涉及版权的案例，法官判决允许非盈利机构中的个人靠销售别人的作品而获利。如果你能找到这样的判例，请让我知晓！）
So does Dr. Fang have the right to use my work under fair use clauses of US and international copyright law? In my opinion, no. He sells his work and is paid to do so. And given that Dr. Fang and one of his supporters have agreed that a substantial portion (as much as 50 to 60%) of his essay is derived from my article (see accompanying letter to Dr. Fang), I believe the problem of just how much of someone else's work one may borrow, with or without attribution, is still germane to our discussion.
（那么，依据美国与国际版权法的合理使用原则，方博士有没有权利那样使用我的作品？我的看法是，他没有。他销售其作品，因之获利。我们已知道，方博士与他的一个支持者都承认他的文章的很大一部分（可达到60%）源自我的文章（见同时发给方博士的信），我相信在注明与不注明来源的情况，一个人可以从他人的作品中借用多少内容，仍然跟我们讨论相关。）
Finally, let me address an issue you raised in an earlier letter that is also germane at this point. Why don't I just accuse Dr. Fang of copyright infringement and let the lawyers decide? Good question. The answer is simply that I am not interested in profiting by this controversy. My goal is educational, as I have said from the outset. I do believe that the ethical issue of what constitutes plagiarism and/or copyright infringement – and more broadly, high academic standards, whether of scholarship or popularization – is an international issue of great importance that deserves discussion by as many people as possible. Dr. Fang, if he really cares about preventing fraud, should be happy to participate in these discussions, helping to educate everyone about the standards that should be used in determining fraudulent activities. After all, the more people know about what fraud is, how to recognize it, and how to prevent it, the better off we all are. Isn’t this what Dr. Fang has been claiming all these years? So why is Dr. Fang refusing to participate in this debate? And why are you not taking him to task for his absence from it?
（最后，让我回答你先前发信提及的一个相关问题。为什么我不仅仅指控方博士侵犯版权，然后让律师决定结果。非常好的问题。简单的答案是我对从这一争议中获利不感兴趣。一如我开始就点明的那样，我的宗旨在教育。我的确相信什么行为构成了剽窃和/或侵犯版权的道德问题——以及更广泛而言，提高不论是学术还是普及作品的学理标准——是一个国际重要议题，需要并值得大家最广泛的讨论。方博士如果真心关心预防造假，应当很高兴参与这样的讨论，在决定造假行为的标准上帮助教育所有人。毕竟，更多的人懂得什么是造假，怎样认别，以及怎么预防，我们都会活得更好。这难道不是方博士多年来一直坚持的主张吗？那么为什么方博士拒绝参加这一对话呢？为什么你对他的缺席不置一词呢？）
Root-Bernstein信件附Aimee Cluo的私信：
Quoting Aimee Cluo <aimeecluo@gmail.com>:
> Dear Professor Root-Bernstein:
>
>
> When you wrote your last email to me with
"copy anything I write and claim
> it as their own", in which you mentioned two essential elements, and
I
> suppose that means you have finally agreed with me on the following:
>
>
> (1) There are two necessary conditions in the definition of
"Plagiarize",
> i.e., (a) to use another person's idea or a part of their work, and (b) to
> pretend or claim as his own.
>
> (2) Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two fundamentally different
> concepts
>
>
> There are at least several conceptual mistakes you have made in your open
> letters that are now widely published in China by your authorized
> people. Chinese
> lawyer [ref1] and professors [ref2] are now commenting on the errors you
> made in your open letters and your emails that have been published by your
> allies.
>
>
> **
>
> Now what concerns me is that you also have misunderstanding about the
nature
> and the difference between dramatic or artistic work and scientific
> publication in the context of copyright law.
>
> * *
>
> I wish to provide with you the following. You can find the references I am
> providing for you to check the accuracy.
>
>
>
> * I. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use** *
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
> 106<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>and
> 106A, <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a>
the fair use of a
相关专题：方舟子被指抄袭
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自廖俊林科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-460310-478221.html?mobile=1
收藏
