編劇趙華：根伯教授向方舟子發(fā)射多彈頭導(dǎo)彈

不愿做轉(zhuǎn)基因毒糧小白鼠者快去投票支持民族英雄呂永巖！（每次登陸都可投票）

http://www.blogchina.com/201107231170836.html

.

“根伯”教授向方舟子發(fā)射多彈頭導(dǎo)彈

編劇趙華

.

方舟子母校伯恩斯坦教授怒斥方是民“博士”

.

科普剽家方舟子母校的“根伯”伯恩斯坦教授，被受到抄襲剽竊指控后百般狡賴的方舟子（方是民）之強(qiáng)詞奪理和拒不認(rèn)錯(cuò)無(wú)恥態(tài)度激怒，怒而向方舟子及其黑惡團(tuán)伙發(fā)射多彈頭導(dǎo)彈，如美籍華裔超一流生命科學(xué)家劉實(shí)所言，一頭炸方舟子，一頭炸方粉，威力極其巨大！

.

方舟子及其同伙的所有科普作品“允許剽竊”歪理，均被伯恩斯坦教授駁得體無(wú)完膚。尤其具有震撼力的是，伯恩斯坦教授從方舟子（方是民）的拙劣狡辯中發(fā)現(xiàn)，中國(guó)允許方舟子這樣毫無(wú)道德底線者“法外”黑惡“打假”，簡(jiǎn)直匪夷所思。

.

的確，10多年來(lái)，肖傳國(guó)教授、學(xué)者劉實(shí)、亦明（葛莘）、尋正（廖俊林）等，早已揭穿了方舟子（方是民）博士論文造假起家、無(wú)文不抄，無(wú)書(shū)不剽的事實(shí)，方舟子非但“不倒”，反而步步“高升”，成了中外主媒力挺的所謂“打假斗士”，甚至導(dǎo)致肖傳國(guó)教授蒙冤入獄，委實(shí)讓人大跌眼鏡，實(shí)乃天大的怪事和笑話。

.

但從去年筆者跟蹤方舟子所有言行以來(lái)，方舟子的種種“蛛絲馬跡”，已經(jīng)顯現(xiàn)為定有幕后原委的一系列“行為邏輯”鏈條。概括地說(shuō)，方舟子（方是民）以渾身是假之身，能夠在中國(guó)興風(fēng)作浪，在于他參與了美國(guó)“毀華三大戰(zhàn)役”，成為了美國(guó)對(duì)華“軟熱戰(zhàn)”的急先鋒。無(wú)論方舟子（方是民）是何國(guó)籍，他的所有言行都是“逢華必反”，“談美必贊”，完全是單方面維護(hù)美國(guó)利益。

.

方舟子參與的美國(guó)“毀華三大戰(zhàn)役”為：

一，以“學(xué)術(shù)打假”和打擊“偽科學(xué)”之名，打擊和削弱中國(guó)的科技創(chuàng)新。方舟子對(duì)肖傳國(guó)教授這個(gè)真科學(xué)家和諾貝爾之星以及另兩位中國(guó)諾貝爾之星張穎清教授、徐榮祥教授的瘋狂迫害、攻擊和誹謗，即是明證。

二，以打擊“偽科學(xué)”之名，瘋狂攻擊中醫(yī)中藥，為歐美西藥巨頭全面占領(lǐng)中國(guó)市場(chǎng)鳴鑼開(kāi)道。

三，以美國(guó)在華“轉(zhuǎn)基糧”首席代言人和黑打手身份，拼命掩蓋“轉(zhuǎn)基糧”劇毒真相，瘋狂攻擊、誹謗所有敢于質(zhì)疑“轉(zhuǎn)基糧”安全謊言的蔣高明、薛達(dá)元、顧林、曹明秀華等中外學(xué)者，不遺余力推進(jìn)中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基糧商業(yè)化種植和銷售，以利美國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)壟斷資本操控中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)命脈，以轉(zhuǎn)基糧“慢性毒食”摧毀中國(guó)人的健康。

.

假如只有美國(guó)后臺(tái)而無(wú)中國(guó)保護(hù)傘，方舟子仍然無(wú)法興風(fēng)作浪。于是，人們漸漸看出方舟子身后靠90％以上大規(guī)模抄襲碩士論文混入新華社還無(wú)恥聲稱“問(wèn)心無(wú)愧”的方是民之妻劉菊花，北大生科院院長(zhǎng)饒毅，著名學(xué)棍兼學(xué)霸何祚庥，著名學(xué)霸鄒承魯，真理部大佬于光遠(yuǎn)這一條粗粗的宣傳口“黑線”。再往上追，“你懂的”。

.

附錄一：尋正被正式授權(quán)翻譯《美國(guó)教授再次公開(kāi)嚴(yán)斥方舟子》

.

方舟子拒絕因?yàn)樨飧`美國(guó)教授作品而道歉，相反，處處以語(yǔ)言障礙為契機(jī)，誤導(dǎo)國(guó)內(nèi)觀眾，在2011年8月12日方舟子向Root-Bernstein教授偷偷摸摸發(fā)信，一是拒認(rèn)90%抄襲，二是要求退出Root-Bernstein教授發(fā)起的批方論壇。Root-Bernstein教授可能氣壞了，要冷靜之后再回復(fù)他，或者因?yàn)槊τ谑聞?wù)，來(lái)不及回復(fù)他，導(dǎo)致方舟子以為Root-Bernstein就此要放他一馬，于是乎得意洋洋地在自己的微博中把相關(guān)信件發(fā)了出來(lái)，顯示自己好象給予了適當(dāng)交待。

面對(duì)方舟子的無(wú)恥與賴皮，Root-Bernstein再次地不留情面，給予了“中國(guó)的打假第一人”以重責(zé)。以下是Root-Bernstein教授公開(kāi)信全文（藍(lán)色為譯文）：

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Dr. Fang,（親愛(ài)的方博士）

What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don't play by anyone's rules but your own anyway?

（真是一個(gè)大笑話！如果我堅(jiān)持把你的來(lái)信及回信公開(kāi)，你就威脅要退出討論？首先，如果不公之于眾，我寫(xiě)的那些公開(kāi)信還能叫公開(kāi)信嗎？其次，你本來(lái)就幾乎從不參加討論，你的威脅有意義嗎？第三，我以為你的事業(yè)就是幫助中國(guó)發(fā)現(xiàn)與揭露不論何時(shí)何地的造假，那么你為什么拒絕參加一個(gè)針對(duì)什么是剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)的公開(kāi)討論？最后，最重要的是，你背著我一直在你的網(wǎng)站與中國(guó)媒體上攻擊我，你怎么有臉要求我不公開(kāi)你的信件？因此，無(wú)庸置疑，此信發(fā)給每個(gè)人，你要干什么，隨你。你除了自定規(guī)則，是不遵守別人的規(guī)則的。）

You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there's a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.

(你質(zhì)問(wèn)我從何處得到你剽竊我的文章達(dá)到90%的結(jié)論，抗議說(shuō)絕不會(huì)超過(guò)50%。好吧，我簡(jiǎn)捷明快地回答你：顯然，我從未見(jiàn)識(shí)到你的全部文章，包括你遞送的文本！你應(yīng)該記得寄給我你文章的譯文，它并非全文。因此，如果我誤解了你竊取了多少我的文章，你跟其他人一樣難辭其疚。)

In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone, including you, agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.

（不管怎么說(shuō)，起碼我們討論的是你的文章竊取了多少我的內(nèi)容。對(duì)此，你的自稱支持者之一（見(jiàn)所附電郵）還將之定量在60%。不管我們?cè)趺纯催@個(gè)問(wèn)題，所有人，包括你自己，都同意你的文章很大一部分取自我的文章。因此，問(wèn)題就歸結(jié)于多少是不適當(dāng)?shù)模磕阋呀?jīng)承認(rèn)，在你最初博文中就應(yīng)當(dāng)因?yàn)槔淄潭榷峒耙梦摇Ｈ绻淄潭热绱烁撸阌謶{什么否認(rèn)剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)指控？將之變?yōu)楣_(kāi)討論的確切原因正是因?yàn)槎嗌倮淄遣贿m當(dāng)?shù)男枰魄茫阕约旱恼J(rèn)可也顯然有助于我對(duì)你的批評(píng)。）

You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?

（你還宣稱我自制了剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。對(duì)此我堅(jiān)稱我指控你剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并非自己心血來(lái)潮。對(duì)這些問(wèn)題每一個(gè)重要的雜志與每一個(gè)教育機(jī)構(gòu)都有指南并且都大致相同。如果象你這樣的中國(guó)學(xué)者希望參與世界科學(xué)文化，你必須學(xué)會(huì)遵守這些指南所立定的規(guī)則。我為你附上美國(guó)化學(xué)協(xié)會(huì)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。你應(yīng)當(dāng)注意到，不僅僅是你無(wú)權(quán)復(fù)制我的文章，甚至我自己都不能從我的發(fā)表文章中復(fù)制超出400字的內(nèi)容，也不能再使用我自己的圖表，除非取得雜志的允許。版權(quán)不僅保護(hù)作者的權(quán)益，也保護(hù)出版商的權(quán)益！這就涉及到我們的討論中還沒(méi)有論及的一個(gè)要點(diǎn)，這就是你不僅剽竊與（或）侵犯了我的文章的版權(quán)，也剽竊侵犯了牛津大學(xué)出版社的版權(quán)，該出版商出版了含有我的文章的書(shū)。你從他們那里獲得了使用我的材料的許可沒(méi)有？）

Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can't be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can't be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.

（你對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的迄今為止的回應(yīng)是你是打假專家，你鑒定你沒(méi)有剽竊我，也沒(méi)有侵犯我的版權(quán)。然而，你拒絕提供你的鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這不僅是讓我，也讓中國(guó)人民茫然無(wú)知，你指責(zé)任何人造假采取什么標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這還有更進(jìn)一步的問(wèn)題：即使你最終遮遮掩掩地說(shuō)出你的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)，你也不能成為你這一案的裁定者。實(shí)際上，在任何案例中，你都不能同時(shí)扮演指控者、法官、與陪審團(tuán)的角色，然而，那正是你試圖為已攫取的權(quán)力。）

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility, as do I!, to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don't want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I'm not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.

（現(xiàn)在我們就進(jìn)入了問(wèn)題的中心。我對(duì)你是否偷竊了我的部分作品的擔(dān)心遠(yuǎn)不如我擔(dān)心你把自己當(dāng)成了監(jiān)督中國(guó)造假行為的一個(gè)不受制約也不承擔(dān)指控的角色。沒(méi)有任何個(gè)人應(yīng)當(dāng)擁有你所攫取的權(quán)力。你（我也一樣！）擁有絕對(duì)的權(quán)力，也實(shí)際上是絕對(duì)的義務(wù)，來(lái)揭露任何造假，但是你無(wú)權(quán)決定你的指控是否正確。你應(yīng)當(dāng)看到，如果你有此特權(quán)，我也應(yīng)該有，那樣的話，就可以因?yàn)槲艺f(shuō)你剽竊與侵權(quán)了，你就剽竊與侵權(quán)了。你顯然不愿就此伏法，我也不愿如此行事。但是你必須籍著這樣的矛盾理解到你不能擁有超越別人的特權(quán)。決定造假取決于沒(méi)有偏見(jiàn)的、沒(méi)有利益傾向的行為者，無(wú)論是在這一案例中，還是其它你指控別人的案例或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中國(guó)，或者在世界其它地方可以決定你可以不經(jīng)過(guò)允許而使用多少我的作品，但我確信，那必不是你自己！我現(xiàn)在的對(duì)此事的最大期望是此案會(huì)導(dǎo)致中國(guó)針對(duì)造假（比如剽竊與侵犯版）的案例處理實(shí)踐以及誰(shuí)擁有此類事件的發(fā)言權(quán)帶來(lái)巨大的變化）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478108

.

附錄二：尋正被正式授權(quán)翻譯《盧伯恩斯頓教授再次確認(rèn)其指控的真實(shí)性》

.

不少曾經(jīng)受蒙蔽的觀眾迄今仍然懷疑方舟子受其母校教授指責(zé)剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)的真實(shí)性，方舟子的水軍也致力于攪混水，試圖繼續(xù)蒙蔽世人，樹(shù)造打假斗士不會(huì)剽竊的光輝形象，盡管這一形象破產(chǎn)得不能再破了。針對(duì)方舟子及其支持者不時(shí)發(fā)出的謠言，盧伯恩斯頓教授再次（2011年8月21日）向一位詢問(wèn)者確認(rèn)其指控及一系公開(kāi)信的真實(shí)性。盧伯恩斯頓教授明確公開(kāi)授權(quán)所有感興趣的人翻譯并傳播其過(guò)去及將來(lái)的公開(kāi)信，認(rèn)為越多人知情越好。歡迎向盧伯恩斯頓教授求證：[email protected]

方舟子，這一次好象不好賴啊。

      1) The letter is real. I have appended it to this email. You will be receiving another response to Dr. Fang shortly that expands on my concerns.

      2) I have accused Dr. Fang of plagiarism and copyright infringement in several public letters that Dr. Fang has received copies of. If he says otherwise, he is lying.

      3) If Mr. Fang were merely citing the source of an idea, then he would be correct in asserting that he does not need my permission, nor the publisher of my book chapter (Oxford University Press). But Dr. Fang did not just cite my ideas: he copied, almost verbatim, half-a-dozen paragraphs from my chapter in writing his article, and the material from my chapter constitutes at least half of his article.  Using this much of someone else's material without their explicit permission is not allowed by any publisher of which I am aware, nor any educational institution, and this is true whether Dr. Fang actually translated my words directly, or merely reworded such a substantial amount of my argument and its examples. Moreover, Mr. Fang cannot use the excuse of relying on "Fair Use", since he personally is paid by his non-profit organization to write his blog and books, and therefore profits from his unfair borrowing of other people's material.

      4) Yes, you may translate and post my original letter, as well as the additional letters  you will be receiving shortly. Indeed, I grant this right to translate my letters into Chinese to anyone who wishes to do so, with the sole proviso that the translation be complete and accurate.  The more people who have access to the entire controversy and the more translation versions there are to compare, the better the issues can be decided.

      Many thanks for your interest in this problem.

      Sincerely,（誠(chéng)摯地）

      Bob Root-Bernstein（鮑勃*盧伯恩斯頓）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478241

.

附錄三：尋正被正式授權(quán)翻譯《美國(guó)教授同時(shí)嚴(yán)詞嗆聲方舟子鐵桿粉絲》

.

Aimee Cluo幾乎是方舟子的一個(gè)翻版，可以竄改美國(guó)憲法為方舟子辯論，使足吃奶的勁攻擊Root-Bernstein的論點(diǎn)，但邏輯上巔三倒四，大家都沒(méi)有興趣理睬她，但仍然喋喋不休地“糾正”Root-Berntstein的“錯(cuò)誤觀點(diǎn)”。針對(duì)方舟子的賴皮，Root-Bernstein含怒出手，也隨便嘲笑教訓(xùn)了這位“中立”的支持者。

在Root-Bernstein的回信中，Aimee Cluo的原信內(nèi)容并沒(méi)有Root-Bernstein所嘲笑的相關(guān)內(nèi)容，相關(guān)內(nèi)容在我以前的博文中有介紹，她要求大家視她為“中立”，對(duì)我稱她為方舟子的支持者不滿。我此前回復(fù)她很溫柔，全是暗諷，Root-Bernstein干脆揭開(kāi)來(lái)嘲笑她，嘲笑她的同時(shí)質(zhì)問(wèn)方舟子的二重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，估計(jì)是對(duì)這個(gè)無(wú)理糾纏的話嘮已經(jīng)是由氣生怒了。

Root-Bernstein原信：(藍(lán)色為譯文）

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Aimee Cluo,（親愛(ài)的Aimee Cluo）

Actions, as always, speak louder than words. You claim to be just a student trying to learn, yet you accept nothing I say as valid and ignore the counter-examples that I give to your points. You claim to have no ties to anyone involved in this controversy, yet you always attack my points and never make any criticisms of Dr. Fang's position. You have never asked Dr. Fang to reveal his definitions of plagiarism or copyright infringement. You have never used his blog posts to evaluate whether he might be using a double standard in pretending that there is no problem with the material he has borrowed from me. You never examine my case against Dr. Fang and as HIM to respond to problematic issues. So please do not continue to insult my intelligence by pretending to be just an objective and naïve observer. You aren't.

（一如既往，觀行重于察言。你聲稱自己是一個(gè)學(xué)生，試圖從中學(xué)習(xí)，然而，你否定我說(shuō)的一切話，忽視我針對(duì)你的論點(diǎn)的反證。你聲稱跟此事件中的任何人沒(méi)有關(guān)系，但你總是攻擊我的論點(diǎn)，從不批評(píng)方博士的立場(chǎng)。你從不要求方博士出示他針對(duì)剽竊與侵犯版權(quán)的定義。你從不使用方博士最初的博文來(lái)評(píng)估他是否采用了二重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，裝著他借用我的內(nèi)容無(wú)可指責(zé)。你從未細(xì)究我對(duì)方博士的指控以及他針對(duì)此不當(dāng)問(wèn)題的回應(yīng)。因此，請(qǐng)不要繼續(xù)侮辱我的智慧，假裝成一個(gè)客觀中立不帶偏見(jiàn)的觀察者。你不是。）

That said, I will attempt once more to address some of your key points, invalid as I believe them to be, because other people may learn something useful from our dialogue, even if you don't.

（說(shuō)清楚了這一點(diǎn)，我就再一次來(lái)討論你的一些關(guān)鍵要點(diǎn)，我不認(rèn)為它們有正確性可言，但即使你油鹽不進(jìn)，其他人還可以從中學(xué)到東西。）

No, I do not agree that plagiarism and copyright infringement are absolutely distinct. I already gave you multiple examples of instances where they are not. Until you can demonstrate to me that my examples are invalid (which is impossible, because they involve real cases), I will continue to maintain that plagiarism and copyright infringement can, and often are, overlapping concepts administratively, legally and ethically.

（不，我不認(rèn)為剽竊跟侵犯版權(quán)截然可分。我已經(jīng)給你很多它們不可分的具體例子了。在你沒(méi)有證明我的例子有誤之前（這是不可能的，因?yàn)槲遗e的是實(shí)例），我堅(jiān)稱剽竊跟侵犯版權(quán)可能，也通常從應(yīng)用、到法律、到道德范規(guī)是重疊的概念。）

Secondly, you, yourself, have played a not quite legitimate game in quoting US copyright law because you do not indicate which sentences are from the law and which are your commentaries upon them. Did you really think no one would notice? Do you really think this is an honest approach to debate and learning? I don't!

（其次，你自己在引用美國(guó)版權(quán)法時(shí)就不遵守規(guī)則，你不標(biāo)注哪里是原文，哪些是你的評(píng)論。你真以為別人注意不到嗎？你真以為這是學(xué)習(xí)與討論中的誠(chéng)實(shí)行為？我不那么認(rèn)為。）

As to fair use, you fail to understand (or perhaps don't want to understand; or perhaps hope to confuse everyone about) several important points. Fair use does not grant a person such as Dr. Fang the right to use someone else's work just because he has a non-profit educational corporation. The passages you cite from US copyright law say that these factors will be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether fair use is applicable to mitigating copyright infringement. The law also says very explicitly that one person may not profit from the sale of another person's copyrighted works. Both parts of the law must be applied to any given case. Let me give you three examples (which you will probably refuse to understand once again – but I will try!).

（說(shuō)到合理使用，你沒(méi)有理解（或者不想理解，或者試圖蒙蔽他人）數(shù)個(gè)要點(diǎn)。合理使用并不給象方舟子那樣的，僅僅憑擁有一個(gè)非盈利教育組織的人以使用別人作品的權(quán)利。你所引用的美國(guó)版權(quán)法的條文實(shí)際上是說(shuō)這些因素會(huì)在法庭考量版權(quán)侵權(quán)程度時(shí)，是否適用合理使用原則。法律明確要求使用者不能通過(guò)銷售有版權(quán)的作品而獲利。這兩點(diǎn)要同時(shí)應(yīng)用到任何案例中。讓我給你舉三個(gè)例子（可能你會(huì)再一次拒絕理解，但我會(huì)再試一次！）。）

（合理使用允許我在成本歸已的情況下復(fù)制一篇科學(xué)文章發(fā)給課堂里的學(xué)生，依此針對(duì)它進(jìn)行教學(xué)性的討論。在此條件下，我不會(huì)從分發(fā)該作品中受益，對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)文章而言，我不太可能因此影響到發(fā)表該文的雜志的收益，因?yàn)閷W(xué)生本來(lái)就不太可能訂得起該雜志。）

Fair use does NOT permit me to make copies of a scientific textbook chapter and hand them out to the class so that we can have an educational discussion about it because in this case, I am directly interfering with the ability of textbook publisher to sell copies of the book to these students, who are the primary consumer of the textbook. Even though I personally do not profit, I have harmed the ability of the textbook publisher to profit and many legal cases have decided that this is clearly copyright infringement not covered by fair use.

（合理使用不允許我復(fù)制學(xué)科的教科書(shū)的章節(jié)并將之分發(fā)給學(xué)生，依此針對(duì)它進(jìn)行教學(xué)討論，因?yàn)樵谶@種情況下，我就會(huì)直接影響到教科書(shū)的出版商將此書(shū)銷售給作為其消費(fèi)主體的學(xué)生。雖然我個(gè)人并不從中獲利，我傷害了書(shū)商因之盈利的能力，有許多法庭判案表明，這是明顯的侵犯版權(quán)，不屬于合理使用。）

I also cannot as a professor at a non-profit educational institution, under fair use, make copies of a scientific article and SELL them to students so that we can have an educational discussion because in that case I PROFIT from the work of another individual without compensating them.

（作為非盈利教學(xué)機(jī)構(gòu)的教授，我也不能依據(jù)合理使用原則而復(fù)制一篇科學(xué)論文，將之售于學(xué)生，依此進(jìn)行教學(xué)討論，因?yàn)槟菢樱揖筒粍诙@，以別人的作品獲得收入而沒(méi)有給予別人以補(bǔ)償。）

These distinctions concerning how fair use is actually realized IN RELATION TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF PROFIT in individual cases is relevant because Dr. Fang is PAID a salary by his non-profit corporation and SELLS his essays and books in order to obtain the money to be paid. Whether or not Dr. Fang's corporation makes money or not, he does. I know of no legal case involving copyright infringement where courts have ruled that it is permissible for an individual within a non-profit corporation to profit by the sale of someone else’s work. If you can find such a case, please bring it to my attention!

（這些關(guān)于合理使用原則的基于版權(quán)收益保護(hù)的在個(gè)案上的實(shí)際應(yīng)用跟方博士高度相關(guān)，因?yàn)榉讲┦繌乃姆怯麢C(jī)構(gòu)獲得了收入，通過(guò)銷售其文章與書(shū)籍而獲利。無(wú)論方博士的非盈利機(jī)構(gòu)是否獲得了收益，他本人都獲取了收益。我不知道有任何涉及版權(quán)的案例，法官判決允許非盈利機(jī)構(gòu)中的個(gè)人靠銷售別人的作品而獲利。如果你能找到這樣的判例，請(qǐng)讓我知曉！）

So does Dr. Fang have the right to use my work under fair use clauses of US and international copyright law? In my opinion, no. He sells his work and is paid to do so. And given that Dr. Fang and one of his supporters have agreed that a substantial portion (as much as 50 to 60%) of his essay is derived from my article (see accompanying letter to Dr. Fang), I believe the problem of just how much of someone else's work one may borrow, with or without attribution, is still germane to our discussion.

（那么，依據(jù)美國(guó)與國(guó)際版權(quán)法的合理使用原則，方博士有沒(méi)有權(quán)利那樣使用我的作品？我的看法是，他沒(méi)有。他銷售其作品，因之獲利。我們已知道，方博士與他的一個(gè)支持者都承認(rèn)他的文章的很大一部分（可達(dá)到60%）源自我的文章（見(jiàn)同時(shí)發(fā)給方博士的信），我相信在注明與不注明來(lái)源的情況，一個(gè)人可以從他人的作品中借用多少內(nèi)容，仍然跟我們討論相關(guān)。）

Finally, let me address an issue you raised in an earlier letter that is also germane at this point. Why don't I just accuse Dr. Fang of copyright infringement and let the lawyers decide? Good question. The answer is simply that I am not interested in profiting by this controversy. My goal is educational, as I have said from the outset. I do believe that the ethical issue of what constitutes plagiarism and/or copyright infringement – and more broadly, high academic standards, whether of scholarship or popularization – is an international issue of great importance that deserves discussion by as many people as possible. Dr. Fang, if he really cares about preventing fraud, should be happy to participate in these discussions, helping to educate everyone about the standards that should be used in determining fraudulent activities. After all, the more people know about what fraud is, how to recognize it, and how to prevent it, the better off we all are. Isn’t this what Dr. Fang has been claiming all these years? So why is Dr. Fang refusing to participate in this debate? And why are you not taking him to task for his absence from it?

（最后，讓我回答你先前發(fā)信提及的一個(gè)相關(guān)問(wèn)題。為什么我不僅僅指控方博士侵犯版權(quán)，然后讓律師決定結(jié)果。非常好的問(wèn)題。簡(jiǎn)單的答案是我對(duì)從這一爭(zhēng)議中獲利不感興趣。一如我開(kāi)始就點(diǎn)明的那樣，我的宗旨在教育。我的確相信什么行為構(gòu)成了剽竊和/或侵犯版權(quán)的道德問(wèn)題——以及更廣泛而言，提高不論是學(xué)術(shù)還是普及作品的學(xué)理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——是一個(gè)國(guó)際重要議題，需要并值得大家最廣泛的討論。方博士如果真心關(guān)心預(yù)防造假，應(yīng)當(dāng)很高興參與這樣的討論，在決定造假行為的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上幫助教育所有人。畢竟，更多的人懂得什么是造假，怎樣認(rèn)別，以及怎么預(yù)防，我們都會(huì)活得更好。這難道不是方博士多年來(lái)一直堅(jiān)持的主張嗎？那么為什么方博士拒絕參加這一對(duì)話呢？為什么你對(duì)他的缺席不置一詞呢？）

Root-Bernstein信件附Aimee Cluo的私信：

Quoting Aimee Cluo <[email protected]>:
> Dear Professor Root-Bernstein:
>
>

> When you wrote your last email to me with "copy anything I write and claim
> it as their own", in which you mentioned two essential elements, and I
> suppose that means you have finally agreed with me on the following:
>
>
> (1) There are two necessary conditions in the definition of "Plagiarize",
> i.e., (a) to use another person's idea or a part of their work, and (b) to
> pretend or claim as his own.
>
> (2) Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two fundamentally different
> concepts
>
>
> There are at least several conceptual mistakes you have made in your open
> letters that are now widely published in China by your authorized
> people. Chinese
> lawyer [ref1] and professors [ref2] are now commenting on the errors you
> made in your open letters and your emails that have been published by your
> allies.
>
>
> **
>
> Now what concerns me is that you also have misunderstanding about the nature
> and the difference between dramatic or artistic work and scientific
> publication in the context of copyright law.
>
> * *
>
> I wish to provide with you the following. You can find the references I am
> providing for you to check the accuracy.
>
>
>
> * I. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use** *
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections

> 106<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>and
> 106A, <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a> the fair use of a

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478221

俄長(zhǎng)期毒理試驗(yàn)證實(shí)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆使倉(cāng)鼠三代絕種

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_3d4c4b440100l6n7.html

編劇趙華解讀溫家寶總理關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因問(wèn)題的講話

http://www.blogchina.com/201107171167554.html

呂永巖《國(guó)恥：從“九一八”到“七一四”！》

http://www.blogchina.com/201107161167149.html

方舟子妻劉菊花論文抄襲丑聞專輯（持續(xù)更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144278.html
方舟子造假、抄襲、剽竊鐵案專輯（持續(xù)更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144298.html
美國(guó)導(dǎo)演方舟子團(tuán)伙毀華三大戰(zhàn)役（持續(xù)更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144301.html
抵制轉(zhuǎn)基因、揭露禍國(guó)賊博文專輯（持續(xù)更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201010191026403.html
左派公眾提請(qǐng)公訴茅于軾辛子陵誹謗毛澤東專輯

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144272.html

美國(guó)《紐約客》雜志要把韓寒打造成明星韓德拉

http://www.blogchina.com/201107201168974.html
被新浪博客刪除博客中國(guó)收留博文（持續(xù)更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201011021035431.html
編劇趙華：博文網(wǎng)刊《絕頂閱世》第一至九期

http://www.blogchina.com/201103271111388.html

.

【拒吃大豆油，抵制轉(zhuǎn)基因，不當(dāng)小白鼠】
【反轉(zhuǎn)基因大本營(yíng)：http://www.wyzxsx.com/】
【轉(zhuǎn)基因?qū)ｎ}網(wǎng)站：http://www.zhuanjy.com/】
【簡(jiǎn)明資料：什么是轉(zhuǎn)基因食品？】轉(zhuǎn)基因，就是把A生物比如昆蟲(chóng)、動(dòng)物、細(xì)菌的一部分基因，轉(zhuǎn)移到B生物比如蔬菜、水果、糧食中去，改變B生物的自然特性，達(dá)到人的要求。例如，科學(xué)家將北極魚(yú)體內(nèi)某個(gè)有防凍作用的基因抽出來(lái)植入西紅柿里，制造出耐寒西紅柿，就是一種“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品”。例如，把細(xì)菌中的有毒基因植入水稻中，水稻就能產(chǎn)生抗蟲(chóng)毒素，殺死水稻害蟲(chóng)。對(duì)人有劇毒的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品三大危害：一代致病，二代致殘，三代絕種。http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_67928ef80100jk9g.html

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)