智慧財產的他者及其抵抗:公共園地與創意共用

Abstract

在智慧財產的圈地浪潮下，創意共用（creative commons）被許多公共園地（public domain）的支持者認為是拯救與擴大公共園地的行動方案。一手促成創意共用的Lawrence Lessig更以為創意共用授權在技術上雖然沒有擴大公共園地，但這種展示分享的「實質公共園地」，將有助於自由文化的實現。 儘管如此，不少論者指出以智慧財產為基礎，強調作者自由選擇的創意共用授權，反而是深化了財產權的意識，從而鞏固了Lessig所反對的允准文化。 究竟，創意共用是對智慧財產的抵抗還是認同? 是促長了自由文化，還是允准文化？就此問題的回答，本文嘗試以在文化研究與後殖民研究中，常見的「論述」（discourse）與「他者」（the other）的理論概念，透過批判性的歷史檢視，去看見創意共用它所抵抗與認同的對象---智慧財產論述。 本文認為透過此種取徑，我們將可以更清楚地了解創意共用與智慧財產論述的關係，乃至其與過去抵抗策略的相同與差異，從而在歷史的縱深下，去思考可能的方向。 首先，本文會以英美的歷史發展為經，去探討智慧財產論述的形成過程以及其特色與作用。 本文認為自安妮法案，這個一般認為是第一個保障作者的著作權法開始，其所提示的其實是書商或者後來的資本家，如何透過環繞在「作者」形象上的論述，去正當化其就智慧財產的權利/力行使。 這些論述往往是矛盾與斷裂的，但就其服務於資本家的利益而言，卻是必要的。 思想與表達的公共與私有的二元區分，也有同樣的功能。 而作為智慧財產的他者，公共園地則被描繪為知識的荒原，從而證立了智慧財產的必要性。 在批判性地檢視西方智慧財產論述的發展與作用後，本文將討論戰後台灣註冊審查制度的發展。此一註冊審查制度在戒嚴時期的台灣，屬於輔助性的言論管制。而訴諸智慧財產論述中私有財產權利的講法，是註冊審查制度在1985年可以改為創作取得主義的主要推力之一。 但是，智慧財產論述的移植與深化，也使得公共園地成為權利的他者，成為一個因為沒有人「所有」，所以不能被確認之訴確認存在的「荒地」；而在美國八零年代堅持將進入公共園地的「十年舊片」，重新予以著作權保護的例子中，我們也可以發現錄影帶業者即使感覺到他們的「權利」被侵害了，但進入法律的語言，他們只能訴諸法安定性與國法尊嚴的民族情感，反而是圈地者可以主張個人權利的保障應從新從寬。 此外，從西書翻印與電腦軟體著作權保護的兩個案例切入，我會討論「抵抗中的認同」與「認同中的抵抗」 兩種現象。 在智慧財產與公共園地的文明/原始 、 進步/落後、 開發/ 未開發、 繁榮/ 荒涼、 秩序/海盜二元對應的演化關係中，公共園地被看做落後、野蠻與原始的他者，而智慧財產則是先進、法治與現代的理想的我。 戰後台灣的一些「抵抗」論述，其成立前提反而是「認同」此一二元對應關係---主張台灣還屬「落後」國家，因此「先進」國家如美國的法律，尚不適合台灣「國情」。 另一方面，因為智慧財產論述的內部存在著許多潛藏的矛盾與緊張。 因此，在逐漸熟悉西方智慧財產理論的台灣，也開始有論者，在「認同」智慧財產論述內的法理前提下，「抵抗」美國等西方中心國家所排定的議程。 發源於美國的創意共用授權，與智慧財產論述之間，同樣也有複雜的認同與抵抗關係。本文認為就中介人與作者的利益矛盾而言，創意共用採取的即是在「認同」作者權利下，予以拆解的「抵抗」策略；但是，此種「認同中的抵抗」，因為創意共用未從內部重新想像智慧財產，反而是複製的智慧財產論述的話語，因此很容易變質為「抵抗中的認同」，特別是在缺乏由下而上的運動力量的台灣，更係如此。因此，本文嘗試從「文化景觀裡互相依賴的參與式作者」（inter-dependent participative authorship in cultural landscape）的理念出發，提出「文化共用財產」（cultural common property）的概念，重新省思創意共用與資訊環保運動的定位與未來。

Facing the expansion of intellectual property in the late twentieth century, supporters of public domain often viewed creative commons licenses as a private action to resist the second enclosure and build their own public domain. Lawrence Lessig, founder of creative commons, defined creative commons as an “effective public domain” that aims to realize the vision of free culture. However, some scholars and activists have criticized the fuzziness of creative commons' ideology. From their point of view, creative commons is more like a copyright license than a public domain, a submission to property discourse than a subversive resistance. In this dissertation, I explored this issue through the concepts of “discourse” and “the other” borrowed from critical studies and post-colonial theory. Specifically, I analyzed the texts of “intellectual property discourse ” in a critical historical approach. In this way, we might have more insight about the relationship between creative commons and intellectual property discourse.

By exploring the formation and development of intellectual property discourse in England and U.S.A., I pointed out its function in soothing the anxieties of intellectual property rights holders, who more likely be capitalists than creators, and its structural embedded contradiction. Specifically, although “original genius” as an idea image of authorship repeatedly emerges when it come to the justification of proprietor exclusive and despotic power over its private property, to be a proprietor of an “original ” work only needs to be a copier with bad eyesight who is incapable of making a perfect copy. The dichotomy of “private” expression and “public ” ideas also plays a same role in soothing the anxieties of intellectual property rights holders while continually expanding the scope of their rights. In addition, the other of intellectual property---public domain— becomes an synonym of knowledge wasteland and commons of tragedy in which everyone suffers. This provides a further justification for the institution of intellectual property.

Under the rule of Kuomintang government before it lifted its martial law, Taiwan's Copyright registration system, in which creators need to register its work to acquire copyright, had long be an content-based speech regulation. Although we may doubted its significance in regulating speech compared to publication law, it seems that to some degree government regarded speech with a copyright “license” as a symbol of lawful speech. Instead of arguing from the perspective of free speech, lawyers, scholars and “Copyright Owners Association of Republic of China” tended to invoke intellectual property discourse. They argued that owing to the fact that copyright is a natural right, the copyright registration system unduly limited property rights secured by Constitution. In 1985 Copyright Act, Taiwanese work no longer need to registered to acquired copyright. Although intellectual property discourse played an vital role in this legal reform, it also reinforced the status of public domain of being the other. Because no one has a exclusive right over public domain, the Taiwan High Court think it is unnecessary to confirm its legal status. Furthermore, when U.S.A. demanded Kuomintang government to let their public domain movies regain copyright protection by applying new copyright act's copyright duration, the activists who against this proposal couldn't appeal to rights discourse because they had “no rights” in public domain work.

In addition, from the two case studies, unauthorized books and computer programs in Taiwan, I argued there are two notable phenomenons when it comes to the resistance to of intellectual property discourse : submission in seemly resistance and resistance by acknowledging some elements of intellectual property discourse. In intellectual property discourse, the dichotomy between public domain and intellectual property also represents an evolution from barbarian to civilized, lawless to order, undeveloped to developed . In this vein, some “resistance” in Taiwan premised on this linear evolution theory, arguing the “modern” intellectual property law is too early for undeveloped and primitive Taiwan to adopt. On the other hand, owing to the fact that there are structural embedded contradiction in intellectual property discourse, we could see some lawyer and scholars who were familiar with intellectual property discourse, adopted a subversive strategy by acknowledging some elements of intellectual property discourse.

We could also see this complex submission and resistance relationship between creative commons and intellectual property discourse. By acknowledging the primacy of “author,” creative commons regarded itself as a tool to replace the intermediaries. However, there are some pitfalls in this strategy. Without re-imagine the idea of authorship, instead of voicing out dissents and alternatives, creative might replicate the intellectual property discourse, especially in Taiwan where creative commons is more like a promotion aided by government than a grassgroots movement. Thus, in this dissertation, I propose an concept of “cultural common property” in the lens of “inter-dependent participative authorship in cultural landscape” to rethink the future of creative commons and information environment movement.