Defining Property
March 2012 As a child I read a book of stories about a famous judge in eighteenth century Japan called Ooka Tadasuke.
2012 年 3 月 小时候，我读过一本关于 18 世纪日本著名法官大冈忠介的故事。
One of the cases he decided was brought by the owner of a food shop.
他判定的其中一个案件是由一家食品店的老板提起的。
A poor student who could afford only rice was eating his rice while enjoying the delicious cooking smells coming from the food shop.
一个只买得起米饭的穷学生，一边吃着米饭，一边享受着食品店里飘来的香味。
The owner wanted the student to pay for the smells he was enjoying.
店主希望学生为他喜欢的气味付费。
The student was
该学生是
stealing his smells!
偷走他的气味！
This story often comes to mind when I hear the RIAA and MPAA accusing people of stealing music and movies.
当我听到 RIAA 和 MPAA 指责人们窃取音乐和电影时，我经常想起这个故事。
It sounds ridiculous to us to treat smells as property.
将气味视为财产对我们来说听起来很荒谬。
But I can imagine scenarios in which one could charge for smells.
但我可以想象一下人们可以根据气味收费的场景。
Imagine we were living on a moon base where we had to buy air by the liter.
想象一下，我们住在月球基地，必须按升购买空气。
I could imagine air suppliers adding scents at an extra charge.
我可以想象空气供应商添加气味需要额外付费。
The reason it seems ridiculous to us to treat smells as property
为什么我们认为将气味视为财产是荒谬的
is that it wouldn't work to.
是它行不通。
It would work on a moon base, though.
不过，它可以在月球基地上工作。
What counts as property depends on what works to treat as property.
什么算作财产取决于什么可以被视为财产。
And that not only can change, but has changed.
这不仅可以改变，而且已经改变了。
Humans may always (for some definition of human and always) have treated small items carried on one's person as property.
人类可能总是（对于人类的某些定义来说总是）将随身携带的小物品视为财产。
But hunter gatherers didn't treat land, for example, as property in the way we do.
但狩猎采集者并不像我们那样将土地视为财产。
[ 1 ] The reason so many people think of property as having a single
[ 1 ] 为什么这么多人认为财产是单一的
unchanging definition is that its definition changes very slowly.
不变的定义是它的定义变化非常缓慢。
[ 2 ] But we are in the midst of such a change now.
[ 2 ] 但我们现在正处于这样的变化之中。
The record labels and movie studios used to distribute what they made like air shipped through tubes on a moon base.
唱片公司和电影制片厂过去常常通过月球基地的管道来分发他们制作的东西。
But with the arrival of networks, it's as if we've moved to a planet with a breathable atmosphere.
但随着网络的到来，我们就像搬到了一个拥有可呼吸大气层的星球。
Data moves like smells now.
现在数据就像气味一样移动。
And through a combination of wishful thinking and short-term greed, the labels and studios
通过一厢情愿和短期贪婪的结合，唱片公司和工作室
have put themselves in the position of the food shop owner, accusing us all of stealing their smells.
他们把自己置于食品店老板的立场上，指责我们窃取了他们的气味。
(The reason I say short-term greed is that the underlying problem with the labels and studios is that the people who run them are driven by bonuses rather than equity.
（我之所以说短期贪婪，是因为唱片公司和工作室的根本问题是，经营它们的人是受奖金而非股权驱动的。
If they were driven by equity they'd be looking for ways to take advantage of technological change instead of fighting it.
如果他们受到公平的驱动，他们就会寻找利用技术变革的方法，而不是与之对抗。
But building new things takes too long.
但构建新事物需要很长时间。
Their bonuses depend on this year's revenues, and the best way to increase those is to extract more money from stuff they do already.) So what does this mean?
他们的奖金取决于今年的收入，而增加奖金的最佳方法就是从他们已经做的事情中提取更多的钱。） 那么这意味着什么呢？
Should people not be able to charge for content?
人们不应该对内容收费吗？
There's not a single yes or no answer to that question.
这个问题没有单一的是或否的答案。
People should be able to charge for content when it works to charge for content.
当内容收费有效时，人们应该能够对内容收费。
But by "works" I mean something more subtle than "when they can get
但我所说的“作品”指的是比“当他们能够得到
away with it." I mean when people can charge for content without warping society in order to do it.
远离它。”我的意思是，人们可以对内容进行收费，而不会为此扭曲社会。
After all, the companies selling smells on the moon base could continue to sell them on the Earth, if they lobbied successfully for laws requiring us all to continue to breathe through tubes down here too, even though we no longer needed to.
毕竟，在月球基地销售气味的公司可以继续在地球上销售它们，如果他们成功地游说法律要求我们所有人也继续通过下面的管道呼吸，即使我们不再需要这样做。
The crazy legal measures that the labels and studios have been
唱片公司和工作室采取的疯狂法律措施
taking have a lot of that flavor.
服用有很多那种味道。
Newspapers and magazines are just as screwed, but they are at least declining gracefully.
报纸和杂志也同样完蛋了，但至少它们正在优雅地衰落。
The RIAA and MPAA would make us breathe through tubes if they could.
如果可以的话，RIAA 和 MPAA 会让我们通过管子呼吸。
Ultimately it comes down to common sense.
最终这归结为常识。
When you're abusing the legal system by trying to use mass lawsuits against randomly chosen people as a form of exemplary punishment, or lobbying for laws that would break the Internet if they passed, that's ipso facto
当你试图对随机选择的人进行大规模诉讼作为一种惩罚形式来滥用法律体系，或者游说法律如果通过的话将会破坏互联网，这就是事实
evidence you're using a definition of property that doesn't work.
证据表明您使用的属性定义不起作用。
This is where it's helpful to have working democracies and multiple sovereign countries.
这就是民主国家和多个主权国家的帮助所在。
If the world had a single, autocratic government, the labels and studios could buy laws making the definition of property be whatever they wanted.
如果世界上有一个单一的专制政府，那么唱片公司和电影公司就可以购买法律，让财产的定义成为他们想要的任何东西。
But fortunately there are still some countries that are not copyright colonies of the US, and even
但幸运的是，还有一些国家不是美国的版权殖民地，甚至
in the US, <a href="http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/congress-on-sopa-done.png">politicians still seem to be afraid of actual voters, in sufficient numbers.
在美国，政治家们似乎仍然害怕足够数量的实际选民。
[ 3
[ 3