This is the song "La Donna e Mobile" composed by Giuseppe Verdi for his opera Rigoletto. I am sure you all recognize it. Back in the 19th century, Giuseppe Verdi knew he was on to a winner so he actually kept the entire score secret and didn't even show it to the lead tenor until two days before the first performance of the opera. And he was right to do this, because within a week of the first performance the sheet was being widely sold and transcribed and many people were putting on performances of this song, which has now gone into the popular lexion and is widely used by, for example, soccer fans around the world. 这首歌是 Giuseppe Verdi 在他的歌剧 Rigoletto 中所作的 "La Donna e Mobile"。 我相信你们都认得出来。在 19 世纪当时，Giuseppe Verdi 知道他正在成功的边缘， 所以直到表演的两天前都把乐谱藏起来，甚至是首席男高音也无从窥探。而他这麽做 是对的。因为在第一次演出的一个礼拜内乐谱就广泛地被改编及贩售，许多人跟着演出 这首曲子，到现在已演变成一个流行词汇，且被，例如全球的足球迷广泛使用。 What we have here is an argument about intellectual property. And the reason why it's a complicated argument is because there are three quite distinct and different ways of understanding what intellectual property is. If we think that intellectual property is like any other kind of property, then it must be - like other kinds of property - perpetual. 我们现在争论的是有关智慧财产权。为什麽这是一个复杂的论证是因为了解智慧财产权 有三种迥异的方式。如果我们认为智慧财产权就像其他任何的财产一样，那就如其他的 财产一样，是没有期限的。 That would means in this case that Verdi's estate would still own the rights to the song, and this would mean that if, for example, as a soccer fan you chanted a chant which used the tune from this famous song, you would be violating the intellectual property of Verdi's estate, and you would be subject to penalties. 这表示在此例中，Verdi 的资产中还是有对这首歌的权利，这也表示如果你是个足球迷， 而用这首名歌的曲调唱一首歌，你可能就违反 Verdi 的智财权，然後遭受刑罚。 It would mean that anytime anybody anywhere wanted to use the music or to perform the song, they would have to pay a royalty. If, on the other hand, the kind of intellectual property which we are more familiar with was applied, the time property of copyright, then Verdi would have enjoyed a copyright in this song for a limited number of years from the time of the first performance. It might have been for, say, 25 years. It might have been for his whole lifetime and a certain number of years thereafter. But it would ultimately have expired. Once the copyright had expired, it would then in fact become part of the public domain and freely accessible for anyone who wished to make use of it. 这指出在任何时间、任何人、任何地方要演出或使用这首歌，都要付版税。换言之 如果是套用我们更熟悉的这种智财权的话，基於着作权的时间性，Verdi 可以从第 一次演出後的一段时间内享有这首歌的版权。这可能是 25 年，可能是他死去後的几年。 但他的权利终究会到期，接着这首歌事实上就成为公共领域的一部份，且只要想任何人 都可以取用它。 (* the time property of copyright 那里不知道怎麽插进去。 * It might have been for, say, 25 years. might have been 表跟事实相反，不知 到我这样翻对不对。) The third possibility is the one which in fact did apply because there was no intellectual property in Italy at the time when Verdi composed his opera. That is, as soon as he had published the song by having a public performance in an opera house, it became freely available for anyone who wanted to use it, to develope it, to amend it, to perform it. Now that, in fact, was the case, but it did not stop Verdi from making a considerable amount of money out of Rigoletto as with his other operas. That is because he was famous as the creator of the song. He was able to play upon that, and many people would willingly pay a premium to hear the song and other songs in the great opera performed by his own company or by people that he gave official approval to. 第三种可能是因为在 Verdi 写出他这出剧时，义大利并没有智慧财产权这种东西。 也就是当经由他在剧场中的表演公开了这首歌时，该首歌便可自由地被任何有心人 使用、开发、修改、表演。现在这首歌实际上就是这种例子，但这并没有让 Verdi 无法靠着 Rigoletto 和他其他的歌剧来赚取大量的财富。这是因为他是以这首歌的 创造者闻名。他可以演奏此曲，而许多人会愿意支付他筹金，这样可以享受到在他 自己的剧团或经过同意者所表演的优秀歌剧中的这首或其他歌。 (the one which in fact did apply: 无法理解阿:S) And so this suggests that in fact, given this real-life case, there is no need to have that kind of intellectual property to encourage artistic creativity of this kind. 而这也暗示了实际上，有了这个现实生活的例子，并不需要有这种智慧财产权来鼓励 这种艺术创造。 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 这次的翻译苦恼了一段时间，问题有点多，也麻烦大家纠正一下，谢谢~ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 36.229.84.182