Valid XHTML 1.0!

これがレッシグたんを怒らせた 2 ちゃんねるコメントだ。

  1. 原文
  2. English Translation 版

#original

40 名前:login:Penguin :02/12/07 08:40 ID:3uZp6+RX

なんだよ、みんながいい、いいっていうから読んじゃったよ『コモンズ』。そんなに手放し絶賛本か、まぁ今の風潮なら読んでもいいかって気はするけど、どうせつまらん好評はアマゾンとかで十分お目にかかれるだろうし天邪鬼なんであえておかしくねぇかってところをいくつか。

1.なげーよ。
 なんでもっとまとめて書けないんだよ。いくら人を説得するのが仕事がらだからって長くすればいいってもんじゃないよ。みんなも読むの大変だろ? もっと要点をまとめてかけよ(読んでるときはそんなに長い感じもしないんだが)

2.戦略的だからってねぇ?(p299)
 だからあんたはナップスターで自分のもってない音楽を5%ほどしかダウンロードしなかっただろうよ(それも著作権法違反なんじゃないの?)でも世間はあんたみたいな聖人君子ばかりじゃないと思うよ。ちょっとでも近くにいるそこらの学生にでも聞けばわかること。
 あとがきで山形は戦略的に著作権侵害説を否定なんてフォローしてるけど、こんなのは戦略うんぬんじゃなくて事実をたしかめるべき問題だろーよ。

3.相当量の著作権非侵害利用それもその可能性(p300)
えーと、2にも関係するけど、レッシグの主張って、ネットみたいに環境が変わったら規制も改めて考慮しなくちゃいけないんじゃなかったっけ?
なんかこの人自分に都合のいい判例というか考え方は、考慮せずそのまま適用してるように見えるんだよな。 ここではビデオのTV録画OK(=コピーが許されてる)議論をp2pに当てはめてるんだけど、ビデオとネットを一緒に考えちゃまずいだろ。そりゃビデオだってテレビから録画してがんばって物理的に配る人もいるだろうが、ネットでのp2pに比べたら子供のお遊びみたいなもんだよ。
ネットでは、相当量の著作権侵害の申告があれば、まず差止めをだす方がいい。さもないと、ゆっくり議論してるあいだにみんなのHDDの中に一万曲の音楽と5000個くらいの映画があって、もうおなか一杯ってのがよりありそうなこと。

4.コモンズと創造性の定量的な関係(p381)
コモンズが必要なのはわかった。じゃあとくにコンテンツ層ではどれくらい必要なの。70年から95年にのびて著作者側の期待収益の伸びがわずかなら(それでも確実に一定量は増える)、コモンズ側からみた創造性への寄与なんてよりわずかで無視してもいいくらいなんじゃないの。
なにを指標にして著作者のインセンティブとコモンズ拡大による創造性への寄与のバランスをとるかはなかなか難しい。ちなみにレッシグは、作品ができてから5年×15回っていう案をだしてるけど、この15回の根拠は何なんでしょう? 
しかもコンテンツ層でほんとにコモンズが大きくなると創造性が大きくなるんでしょうか? 絶対的に一定量のコモンズがあれば、どうせみんなの創作に関わる時間は有限だから、創造性には十分って考え方もあるのでは。

5.あとがきつまんねーよ(山形スレってのを思い出した)
「マイクロソフト製品だけ使うことが、自分にとっての便利さを越えた意味をもっているのだ」だって? 規範でせめるアプローチは反発を買いやすいよ。ツールなんて便利だからつかうんだよ。パソコンだって便利だからつかってるんじゃねぇーか。
なんかこういう便利さを犠牲にしても、もっと大事なものがあるみたいな議論は、この前の文でじゅうぶんなフォローがあるけど、気に食わないな。
しかも「コモンズがすばらしいという議論が成り立つためには、みんながそれを使って新しいものを創り出すということが前提となる」だって。いやアジの意図はわからないでもないけど、この本を読んだとも思えない。ゼロから新しいものなんてつくれないでしょ。 だからコモンズのすばらしさは、こんな前提にしばられるもんじゃないぞう(ちょっと揚げ足とりっぽい)

レッシグは法律家だから人を説得するために長い文を書くのは習い性なんだろうけど、山形のあとがきはちょっと手抜きっぽい。
コードの要約ものってるなら、この本の要約もびしっと短い枚数でみんなの記憶に残るようないい文章をかけよ。それが雑文書きとしてのきょーじってもんじゃねぇーの(一回使ってみたかった)

そんなにつっこみどころないなぁ、うん、まぁ今のハリウッド連中の勢いのつき方をみるにつけいい本だね。 それにしても日本でも同じようなことになるとプロジェクト杉田玄白は訴訟をおこすのかね?


#english

A (rather offensive but not completely idiotic) Comment from an anonymous punk @ 2 Channnel

40 :login:Penguin :02/12/07 08:40 ID:3uZp6+RX

Fuck, can't believe I read FOI, cuz people here praise it so much. What's the big deal with this, it's not that much of a masterpiece, I guess it's there's no harm in reading it given the current situation, but since we're going to have enough stupid blind worship reviews in Amazon.co.jp or somewhere, I'll point out some negative points, being the ass-hole that I am;

1. It's fucking too long

Why can't this guy get more organized? Just because it's his job to persuade people, why does he drool on and on and on. Doesn't everyone get fed up? Summarize a bit you idiot (although it doesn't seem too long when reading it)

2. Strategic my ass. (p.299, about the Napster)

So maybe YOUR download of music that you didn't have was only 5% (and that 5% makes you a criminal none the less), but the world isn't made up of Saints like you, huh? Just ask your nearby student. Also the idiot Yamagata tries to cover it up by saying that this is a strategic claim, but strategy my ass, why don't you check the facts, dumb ass.

3. "potential" for a "substantial noninfringing use."

Well well, I thought Lessig's argument was that when the environment changes like the Net, then you need to re-think the regulation. Whenever some case comes out in his favor, it seems that he doesn't take the trouble to re-think THAT case, and just applies it verbatim.
In this part, the guy takes the VCR recording OK argument and applies it to P2P, but it's moronic to mix up video and the Net. Sure, you can go distributing video tapes, but compared to P2P, that's like shit.
On the Net, if there's substantial claim of IPR violation, you SHOULD issue an injunction, because while you're idly discussing away, everyone will probably have all the music and movies they need in their HD and the world's over.

4. Quantitative relation between commons and creativity

All right so you might need commons. But how much, especially in the contents layer? Extension of 70 to 95 years may not increase the expected revenue by much (but it WILL increase nonetheless), but the contribution to creativity caused by the increase of the commons by that amount might be even less, and even more negligible.
It's fucking difficult to come up with a criteria to balance creator's incentive and contribution to creativity through the increase of commons. Lessig say 5 years x 15 times. Try and justify this 15, smart-ass?
And does the increase of commons in the contents layer REALLY increase creativity? Since there's only limited amount of time that people can dedicate to creating stuff, maybe a fixed amount of commons is all you need, and we might have already got enough.

5. Translator's Note Sucks.

What, "But you should realize that locking yourself into an MS only environment does have consequences beyond your personal convenience"? These norm-based approaches tend to backfire, you moron. Convenience is all people care about. PCs are used because they are convenient, you ass hole. These sort of "higher value above convenience" type of argument really gets on my nerves, although the part before that explains about it enough.
And, what's that? "If you want to argue that commons are good, the prerequisite for that would be that people will take advantage of the commons and start creating." I know what this idiot is muthafukka is trying to do here, but has this guy even read this book. You can't create new things from scratch. So the value of the commons doesn't need this sort of pre-requisite (I'm being a bit too picky here).

I guess Lessig is a lawyer so it's in his blood to write long stuff to persuade people, but Yamagata's Note seems like he didn't put enough into it. If you're going to include a summary of CODE like that, why can't you write a good summary of THIS book that stays in peoples mind, huh? You're supposed to be a writer, isn't it in your pride to do that, you useless piece of turd?

Not enough points to pick on, and considering the Hollywood vandalism these days, it's a good book after all I'd say. But if a similar situation occurs in Japan, would Project Sugita Genpaku (note: A free translation project that Yamagata's heading) would have the guts to take it to court? I wonder.


(Note on the translation: Hey guys, I DIDN'T WRITE THIS! Don't shoot your humble translator. Also, I need to explain. 2 Channeru, where the original text appeared, is a huge anonymous bbs in Japan with lilerally millions of hits per day. The anonymity, as always, brings out the ugly part in people. Participants engage in bad mouthing people, writing slanders, making snide remarks, being a smartass, making racist comments (anti-Korea and anti-China are the most prevalent), and talking about criminal activities that none of them have the actual guts to really carry out (well, that's not true, some people DO actually carry it out, one kid actually did a busjack, which gave this bbs a really bad name). On the other hand, it sometimes creates good stuff. You often get insider information, like firm A is about to go belly-up (although usually it's more on the lines of "My boss is having an affair with that temp" kind of insider stuff), and some people do make intelligent comments. This is a commons in a way, and there is creativity. Some fonts, Ascii arts, new languages pop-up here. It's not all bad. You just have to know how to sort out the few good info from the multitude of crap. Once you get to know it, it's not that different from life as usual.
Now, because of it's anonymity, people often deliberately tryes to be repulsive and offensive in their way of phrasing. They use language that you's never use in real life. The orignal Japanese text does that. The translation tries to convey that offensiveness, the distance from the normal mode of speech. Original text doesn't explicitly say "fuck" or "asshole" explicitly. In order to preserve and convey that repulsiveness, I took the liberty of inserting those phrases. Because that's the most straightforward way to reproduce the sense of offensiveness. and because that's exactly how this punk would most likely phrase it in English. )

『コモンズ』サポートページ YAMAGATA Hirooトップに戻る


Valid XHTML 1.0!YAMAGATA Hiroo (hiyori13@alum.mit.edu)