Counterpoint: Downloading Isn’t Stealing
原文：http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001112
译文：https://bbs.popkart.org/?thread-141.htm
by Aaron Swartz
作者: Aaron Swartz
The New York Times Upfront asked me to contribute a short piece to a point/counterpoint they were having on downloading. (I would defend downloading, of course.) I thought I managed to write a pretty good piece, especially for its size and audience, in a couple days. But then I found out my piece was cut because the Times had decided not to tell kids to break the law. So, from the graveyard, here it is.
《纽约时报》前期版正在就下载这种行为刊登支持者和反对者的观点，他们想让我也就此发表一些自己的看法 。(我当然是站在下载这一方的。)我花了几天时间，写了一篇自认为很不错的文章，对读者来说内容其实是很丰富的。但是后来我发现我的文章没有被刊登出来，因为纽约时报担心我的文章被孩子们看到后可能会有法律风险。所以，纽约时报简直就是坟场。
Stealing is wrong. But downloading isn’t stealing. If I shoplift an album from my local record store, no one else can buy it. But when I download a song, no one loses it and another person gets it. There’s no ethical problem.
偷窃是错误的。但是下载并不是偷窃。如果我从当地的唱片店偷了一张唱片，就没有人为这张唱片买单了。但是当我下载一首歌曲时，没有人遭受损失，其他人也可以下载（可以很多人同时拥有，不像唱片一样只能被一个人拥有）。在道德上这没有任何问题。
Music companies blame a fifteen percent drop in sales since 2000 on downloading. But over the same period, there was a recession, a price hike, a 25% cut in new releases, and a lack of popular new artists. Factoring all that in, maybe downloading increases sales. And 90% of the catalog of the major labels isn’t for sale anymore. The Internet is the only way to hear this music.
音乐公司将 2000 年以来 15%的销量下降归咎于下载。但在同一时期，出现了经济衰退、价格上涨、新专辑降价 25%，以及缺乏受欢迎的新艺人。考虑到所有这些因素，也许下载可以增加销量。而且90% 的唱片已经不再销售。互联网是听到这些音乐的唯一途径。
Even if downloading did hurt sales, that doesn’t make it unethical. Libraries and video stores (neither of which pay per rental) hurt sales too. Is it unethical to use them?
即使下载确实损害了销售，但这并不意味着它不道德。图书馆和音像店(两者都不按租金付费)也损害了销售。使用它们是否也不道德？
Downloading may be illegal. But 60 million people used Napster and only 50 million voted for Bush or Gore. We live in a democracy. If the people want to share files then the law should be changed to let them.
下载可能是非法的。但是有 6000 万人使用 Napster，只有 5000 万人投票给布什或戈尔。我们生活在一个民主国家。如果人们想分享文件，那么法律应该做出改变让人们可以分享他们的文件。
And there’s a fair way to change it. A Harvard professor found that a $60/yr. charge for broadband users would make up for all lost revenues. The government would give it to the affected artists and, in return, make downloading legal, sparking easier-to-use systems and more shared music. The artists get more money and you get more music. What’s unethical about that?
有一个公平的方法可以改变它。一位哈佛教授发现 60 美元/年。对宽带用户收费将弥补所有收入损失。政府将把它给受影响的艺术家，作为回报，它将使下载合法化，从而引发更易于使用的系统和更多的共享音乐乐。艺术家得到更多的钱，你得到更多的音乐。这有什么不道德的？
Footnotes:
脚注:
“a fifteen percent drop in sales since 2000”: This is from the RIAA’s own chart. In 1999, they sold 938.9M CDs, in 2002 they sold 803.3M. (938.9-803.3)/938.9 ~= .14 (so it’s really closer to 14%, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say 15%).
“自2000年以来销售额下降了15%”: 这来自美国唱片业协会自己的图表。1999年，他们卖出了93890万张 cd，2002年，他们卖出了80330万张 cd (938.9-803.3)/938.9 ~ = 0.14(所以这实际上接近14% ，但我们会给他们一些怀疑的好处，说15%)。
“a 25% cut in new releases”: It depends on how you count. The RIAA says they released 38,900 new releases in 1999. According to SoundScan the RIAA released 31,734 new releases in 2001, leading to an 18% drop. This isn’t really fair, since we’re using RIAA numbers for 1999 and SoundScan numbers for 2001, and SoundScan probably doesn’t count as many albums as the RIAA does. However, the RIAA said in early 2003 that they released 27,000 new albums the previously year. Apparently embarassed by this information, they’ve since removed it from their website. But if you use their numbers, you get a 31% drop. I’ve split the difference and called it a 25% cut. But I could change this to 30% or 20% if you wanted; I don’t think it would change the argument.
“新发行的版本减少25%”: 这取决于你如何计算。美国唱片业协会说，他们在1999年发布了38,900个新唱片。根据 SoundScan 的数据，RIAA 在2001年发布了31734个新版本，所以下降了18% 。这真的不公平，因为我们使用 RIAA 1999年的数字和 SoundScan 2001年的数字，并且 SoundScan 可能没有 RIAA 那么多的专辑。然而，唱片协会在2003年初表示，他们在前一年发行了27000张新专辑。显然，他们对这些信息感到尴尬，因为他们已经从网站上删除了这些信息。但是如果你使用他们的数字，你会算出31% 的下降。我折中了一下，称之为25% 的削减。但如果你愿意的话，我可以把它改成30% 或者20% ; 我不认为这会改变这个论点。
“90% of the major label’s catalog isn’t available for sale”: speech by Ken Hertz
“主流厂商的90% 的唱片不再销售”: 肯 · 赫兹的演讲
“60 million people used Napster”: according to the New York Times
据《纽约时报》报道，“有6000万人使用 Napster”
“50 million voted for Bush or Gore”: according to CNN
据美国有线电视新闻网报道，“5000万人投票给了布什或戈尔”
“A Harvard professor found that a $60 per year tax on broadband connections would make up for all lost music and movie sales”: see Terry Fisher, Promises to Keep. “Assuming that the ISPs pass through to consumers the entire amount of the tax, that average fee would rise by $4.88 per month” (p. 31) 4.88*12 ~= 59, so I say $60/yr.
“一位哈佛大学教授发现，每年60美元的宽带连接税将弥补所有失去的音乐和电影销售。”。“假设互联网服务提供商将全部税款转嫁给消费者，平均费用将每月上涨4.88美元”(第31页)4.88 * 12 ~ = 59，所以我说60美元/年。
