A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Creative Commons Licensed

by John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don’t exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland

February 8, 1996

译文在此

王路诉雅虎网页快照案二审判决

北京市高级人民法院民事判决书

(2007)高民终字第1729号

上诉人(原审原告)王路,男,汉族,1955年2月15日出生,清华大学人文学院职工,住中华人民共和国北京市东城区后拐棒胡同甲2号。

委托代理人孟梅,女,汉族,1970年10月15日出生,无业,住中华人民共和国北京市东城区细管胡同3号。

被上诉人(原审被告)雅虎公司(Yahoo!Inc),住所地美利坚合众国加利福尼亚州94089,散尼维尔第一大道701。

法定代表人苏珊·迪克(SusanDecker),执行副总裁及财务总监。

上诉人王路因侵犯著作权纠纷一案,不服中华人民共和国北京市第一中级人民法院于2007年7月26日做出的(2005)一中民初字第5761号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院2007年10月22日受理后,依法组成合议庭,于2008年3月24日公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人王路的委托代理人孟梅,被上诉人雅虎公司的委托代理人李珺到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

北京市第一中级人民法院认定:《开放时代》2001年3月号刊登了《弗雷格和维特根斯坦:一个常常被忽略的问题》一文,《西南师范大学学报》哲学社会科学版1999年第2期刊登了《论我国的逻辑教学》一文,《中国青年报》2003年8月10日刊登了《从〈小逻辑〉到〈逻辑学〉》一文。上述三篇文章署名作者均为王路。中华人民共和国北京市公证处出具的(2005)京证经字第01940号公证书(以下简称第01940号公证书)显示:在http://www.yahoo.com网站“Searchtheweb”一栏中键入“王路逻辑”进行搜索,该搜索结果中包含有上述三篇文章的网页快照。

北京市第一中级人民法院认为:网页快照是搜索引擎提供的一种专项技术服务,搜索引擎在收录网页过程中,根据技术安排自动将被索引网站网页的HTML编码备份到缓存中。当用户点击搜索结果的“网页快照”或“快照”链接进行访问时,实际上访问的就是缓存页面。网页快照中通常有标题信息说明其存档时间,并提示用户这只是原网站网页页面的存档资料,是搜索引擎自动从原网站上抓取的快照。搜索引擎将根据原网站的更新速度设置网页快照更新周期,定期对网页快照进行更新。搜索引擎能否向用户提供某一网页的快照,取决于原网站是否上载有该网页及该网页是否被禁止快照这两个主要因素;网页快照的内容来源于上载网页的原网站,并受控于原网站,搜索引擎对网页快照的内容是否具有合法性并无预见性和识别性;搜索引擎根据技术安排自动对互联网中所有未被禁止快照的网页设置快照,对搜索引擎而言,其并不知晓为哪些网站的哪些网页设置了快照。王路提起诉讼之前雅虎公司并不知晓其为载有涉案作品的网页设置了快照,亦不知晓涉案网页快照的内容。且雅虎公司在其提供的载有涉案作品的网页快照上明确提示用户这只是原网站网页页面的存档资料,是搜索引擎自动从原网站上抓取的快照,尽到了告知义务。在王路提起本案诉讼后,雅虎公司已经在其网站上屏蔽了涉案作品的网页快照链接。因此,雅虎公司提供网页快照服务并没有侵犯王路著作权的主观过错。

由于互联网中的网页不计其数,网页快照和与之对应的原网页的内容因技术原因无法达到绝对同步,但两者间的刷新延时应在一个合理期限内。如果原网站中的某网页已被修改、删除或屏蔽多时,而搜索引擎怠于保持与原网站的同步,仍在提供该网页的快照,则网页快照已失去了其合理存在的基础,网页快照服务已经从一种技术服务转化成一种信息提供服务,网页快照提供者应当承担相应的法律责任。本案中,王路提交的证据仅显示雅虎公司提供了载有涉案作品网页的快照,但未反映出原网页此时的状况,无法证明雅虎公司提供涉案网页快照时原网站经营者已经修改了原网页的内容或删除、屏蔽了原网页,亦无法进一步从时间上证明雅虎公司提供网页快照已经超过了合理期限。故王路所提交的证据不足以证明雅虎公司在原网站已经修改、删除或屏蔽载有涉案作品网页的情况下,仍长期提供针对原网页的网页快照。 继续阅读王路诉雅虎网页快照案二审判决

网站服务协议制订过程中常见的十大错误做法

作者:李立律师

来源:http://lawlee.net/2276.htm

思想决定思路,态度决定一切。

在中国,网站服务协议的效果如何,鲜见有对之进行评估的。那些所谓的“用户上传来的作品,公司可无限制免费使用”的条款究竟给公司带来多少利益是没谱的。那些冗长的服务协议,那些照抄照搬来的内容,那些动不动就上万字的协议,究竟对客户、对业绩以及对自身带来哪些影响,很少有认真研究的。相反的,经常可以感受到的是客户对这类协议的漠视,大多数客户在点击同意时都不会去看这类协议的内容。更让媒体和法院经常提及的是“显失公平的条款”、“霸王条款”。于是,在国内,网站服务协议一般被认识为可有可无或者网站经营者逃避责任的东西。

或许有人说,一份协议本来就该是冷冰冰的纯法律的文件。这种思想也许就是造成上述情形的主要原因。

如何理解网站服务协议在互联网公司经营中的地位和作用,不同的人、不同类型的产品对可以有不同的想法。但是,在我,一个从事商务及互联网法律服务十多年的律师的眼里,公司的一切行为,最终目的都是取得商业价值,包括法律的运用在内。任何公司内部为经营而采取的行为,都不是孤立的,而是与整个公司的战略和运营有机相连的。

正如,在公司内部,没有人会认为财务归财务,业务归业务,互不相干,也不会有人认为人事归人事,业务归业务,互不相干。网站服务协议的制订同样如此,要把它放在公司运营的战略和战术中去考虑和定位。简单地说,你想做什么样的产品和服务,你的用户服务协议就要相应地做成什么内容和形式。想做一个非常人性化的线上服务而服务协议却是冷酷无比,想要做一个有信用的线上服务而服务协议去显得不负责任,想要做一个自动化简洁的线上服务而服务协议却有太多需要人工干预的事项,这些都是会对互联网公司整体战略造成损害的做法。

以下是我认为的在网站服务协议制订过程中常见的十大错误做法

  1. 抛开公司产品和服务的特点、抛开公司内部管理,直接由外部律师起草网站服务协议;
  2. 不从自身具体情况出发,直接照搬他人的网站服务协议;
  3. 只懂得在协议里加强自己的权利,逃避对用户的责任,根本不顾用户体验及用户利益;
  4. 设定表面对自己有利其实无用的“显失公平的条款”;
  5. 不懂得将服务理念渗入协议内容中;
  6. 设定可以单方面随意修改服务协议的条款;
  7. 协议的制订过程,没有各部门或核心业务人员、技术人员的参与;
  8. 没有内部管理流程以及售后服务流程的配套,制订没有可执行性的内容;
  9. 缺乏对业务及相应法律的长期研判,制订的协议内容在大势变动下面临不断需要修改的状况;
  10. 只知道让用户在注册时点击同意就以为万事大吉的协议告知及协议利用方式。

怎样避免上述错误,怎样让网站服务协议真正给公司运营带来增值作用,怎样充分利用网站协议改进产品及服务,怎样利用网站服务协议的制订过程完善内部管理及用户体验,首要的是要从观念上重新审视网站服务协议与公司经营之间的关系。不要把公司与用户对立起来,不要把法律与商业分割开来,不要把网站服务协议的制订只理解为是法务部门或外聘律师的工作。只有在这样的观念驱使下,你才能真正发现网站服务协议的制订过程以及网站服务协议内容本身对互联网公司经营的莫大益处。

法院判决扫描图书为合理使用

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/

作者:Timothy B. Lee

来源:arstechnica

摘要:美国联邦法官Harold Baer作出裁决,图书馆为Google提供图书扫描数字化的行为受到版权法的合理使用原则保护。这是上周Google与大型图书出版商达成和解后的又一胜利,虽然此案的被告是图书馆而不是Google。Google图书数字化项目的图书大多来自合作的大学图书馆,当Google扫描完一本图书后,它会为图书馆提供该书一个扫描版和文字版,图书馆然后将数字文件保存到Hathitrust Digital Library库中,用于保存、全文搜索和残疾用户访问。(Solidot

淘宝腐败黑幕调查

http://www.ittime.com.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=29&id=2006

来源:《IT时代周刊》

作者:石雁,杨磊,张淇人

摘要:淘宝曾经是创业者的天堂,但短短几年,却变成了多数人的噩梦。虽然淘宝系有许多成长企业共同所面临的烦恼,但当诚信经营、公平竞争等一系列正常的商业规则被腐败产业链所控制时,淘宝建立在马云价值观上的基本商业道德不复存在。因此折射出来的不仅仅是企业管理结构的问题,还有淘宝员工对社会良知的践踏和对商业信誉的漠视。