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. 這首歌是 Giuseppe Verdi 在他的歌劇 Rigoletto 中所作的 "La Donna e Mobile"。 我相信你們都認得出來。在 19 世紀當時，Giuseppe Verdi 知道他正在成功的邊緣， 所以直到表演的兩天前都把樂譜藏起來，甚至是首席男高音也無從窺探。而他這麼做 是對的。因為在第一次演出的一個禮拜內樂譜就廣泛地被改編及販售，許多人跟著演出 這首曲子，到現在已演變成一個流行詞彙，且被，例如全球的足球迷廣泛使用。 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. 我們現在爭論的是有關智慧財產權。為什麼這是一個複雜的論證是因為了解智慧財產權 有三種迥異的方式。如果我們認為智慧財產權就像其他任何的財產一樣，那就如其他的 財產一樣，是沒有期限的。 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. 這表示在此例中，Verdi 的資產中還是有對這首歌的權利，這也表示如果你是個足球迷， 而用這首名歌的曲調唱一首歌，你可能就違反 Verdi 的智財權，然後遭受刑罰。 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. 這指出在任何時間、任何人、任何地方要演出或使用這首歌，都要付版稅。換言之 如果是套用我們更熟悉的這種智財權的話，基於著作權的時間性，Verdi 可以從第 一次演出後的一段時間內享有這首歌的版權。這可能是 25 年，可能是他死去後的幾年。 但他的權利終究會到期，接著這首歌事實上就成為公共領域的一部份，且只要想任何人 都可以取用它。 (* the time property of copyright 那裡不知道怎麼插進去。 * It might have been for, say, 25 years. might have been 表跟事實相反，不知 到我這樣翻對不對。) 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. 第三種可能是因為在 Verdi 寫出他這齣劇時，義大利並沒有智慧財產權這種東西。 也就是當經由他在劇場中的表演公開了這首歌時，該首歌便可自由地被任何有心人 使用、開發、修改、表演。現在這首歌實際上就是這種例子，但這並沒有讓 Verdi 無法靠著 Rigoletto 和他其他的歌劇來賺取大量的財富。這是因為他是以這首歌的 創造者聞名。他可以演奏此曲，而許多人會願意支付他籌金，這樣可以享受到在他 自己的劇團或經過同意者所表演的優秀歌劇中的這首或其他歌。 (the one which in fact did apply: 無法理解阿: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. 而這也暗示了實際上，有了這個現實生活的例子，並不需要有這種智慧財產權來鼓勵 這種藝術創造。 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 這次的翻譯苦惱了一段時間，問題有點多，也麻煩大家糾正一下，謝謝~ --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 36.229.84.182