近日在國際網絡發展上殺得來勢洶洶的，不是惠普（HP）電腦將替用戶預先裝設 Yahoo! 網絡工具系列的消息，也不是 YouTube 有意賣盤索價 15 億美元的傳聞。畢竟，這些都不過是網絡市場上最慣常的過眼雲煙；炒作過後，或許個別科網公司的股票價格會因而升跌多少，算不上什麼重要的發展，更遑論突破性發展新方向。
對我來說，真正震撼的動作，還是英國文化協會屬下研究文化關係的智庫組織 Counterpoint 在最近倫敦書展期間發表了一本名為 Unbounded Freedom - A guide to Creative Commons thinking for cultural organisations 的小書。Unbounded Freedom 由自由撰稿人 Rosemary Bechler 所撰寫，除了是英國文化協會首次以「創作共用」許可協議（Creative Commons license）出版的刊物外，還供人免費下載，不僅在發行形式上向「創作共用」的方向踏出了一大步，在內容上亦非常傾向支持「創作共用」的想法。 Unbounded Freedom 在新書發報會上已經惹來創作工業代表的猛烈抨擊，隨即引發一連串熱烈的討論。
「創作共用」的誤解
雖然 Unbounded Freedom 是一本只有五十多頁的小書，立場卻非常鮮明，首先從歷史角度回顧了最近 200 年內知識版權法在英美兩地的急速驟變和霸道發展，接下來又宏觀列舉出現今知識版權在科技、經濟、社會和文化領域上所受到的種種挑戰，繼而推展至書中最核心的建議部分 ── 作者、用戶和文化出版機構如何建立雙向的信任關係、怎樣實踐「創作共用」的案例探究。
所謂「創作共用」（Creative Commons），其實建基於版權法，讓用戶自由選擇、清楚標示在哪些情況下他們的作品可以供人任意使用。原則上，因為你發出的「創作共用」許可協議限制了別人的商業用途，誰希望利用你的作品作商業發行，都需要你的同意和授權。我希望澄清這個經常混為一談的概念﹕「創作共用」只是一個簡便的版權函授機制，而「創作共用」也不一定等於創作成果遭人任意使用，最後連乞食也沒飯吃。許多業界代表對「創作共用」和 Unbounded Freedom 一書的批評也源於這種誤解。
BBC 的分享哲學
Unbounded Freedom 的案例部分中最鏗鏘有力的論據，也許是英國廣播公司（BBC）在本年度 4 月公布的 2010 年編採藍本。在這份題為「創意未來」的新發展藍本中，BBC 強調其第二代網站將全面實行「分享」哲學，用戶可以自由下載 BBC 在過去7日內8個頻道中所播放的任何節目，再於電腦或其他流動媒體裝置上播放欣賞。另一項非常突破的建議是開放 BBC 的檔案館，容許用戶在網上蒐尋、翻查由 1937 年至今的 100 萬個節目。BBC 的網站也變身成公眾的網站，用戶將不再局限於被動的觀眾或聽眾角色，同時也可以是扮演創作人，自主製作內容，在 BBC 提供的公眾平台上與其他用戶分享共用。或許因為需要顧及商業上的收益（例如部分節目將會輯錄成影碟出售），BBC 不會徹底採用更開放的「創作共用」許可協議，但 BBC 這種面對（而不是迴避）新科技的實驗態度和積極反應，實在贏盡民心。
自由文化的實踐與變節
當然，無論是英國還是香港，這都是一個喜歡空喊口號多於履行實務的年代。BBC 的網絡改革到底有什麼成效，還需拭目以待。我目前最感興趣的是，就連龍頭泰山 BBC 也在政策上全力投身這種以共享為本的「自由文化」（Free Culture），其他大小媒體機構將會如何理解和回應 BBC 的「變節」？繼續視而不見、聽而不聞？道不同不相為謀？還是怎樣？
- - - -
原文刊於《明報》，「星期日生活」，2006 年 10 月 8 日。
另請參閱：楚：〈音樂借不來〉
[...] 當愈來愈多網主開始製作自己的節目，主流媒體亦相繼報道podcasting，我卻遲遲沒有參與。其中一個不算私人的理由是，我很清楚，我沒有權利與別人分享我最喜愛的音樂 [...]
wesley，在inmedia 轉引了你的文章，希望你不介意，連結如下：http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=159405&group_id=22
良，謝謝。
文章刊出後，我有點後悔在第一段中那樣貶低、輕視 YouTube 賣盤的做法。這其實是一個很嚴重的問題，而我的說法實在太大意。理論上，用戶上載至 YouTube 的影片都是用戶的產物，YouTube 憑什麼去賣別人的東西？他們當然會辯說，我們賣的只是技術平台架構，但現實卻是，所有人都知道 YouTube 值錢的地方，不在於軟件或硬件，而在於龐大的用戶人數、流量和習慣。這種網絡上的人口販賣，值得再三反思。
你講的”人口販賣”這個比方，對極！不錯，我們”用”人地用錢用時間研發的東西，但是想想一個造價昂貴的車站，没有人去用它，没有人圍繞這個交通點生活、發展開去，這個車站和上蓋物業或周邊的設施只會賠本、不能經營下去。人去使用一個東西，將設計具體實踐並且為設計者提供了在模型階段未能預見的各種參數，開始了完善的可能，也為這個東西注入了價值、意義生產，它才能繼續維持下去。
我想著的還是教科書參考書影印、電影在課堂或研討中放映這些古老的例子，然而，一個地方的名號、名聲與文化公產，也是不難連繫一起去想吧。
你想說的是 use value 和 exchange value（甚至是 sign value）的分別吧？
hey, wesley, this is exactly what i have been thinking lately for my channel in youtube.
originally, i want to sign up the director programe in which there is unlimited space/duration of video. but then, i realize they have FULL rights to publish my stuff (though non-exclusive rights). so i will upload as orignary video in which i can delete it anytime if i like.
i thought of doing video podcast via i-tunes but i want to test how much youtube can do, how far it can go…
i mean for the fan hung a mv, it was viewed over 5000 times now. it is really nice. i mean i have never had a film/video that can reach so many people.
to a extent extent, it is problematic. as it grows so fast and so big, people tend to use the platform for its unbelievable accessibility.
in fact, v-social, http://www.vsocial.com/ is a better business model. for people uploading ivdeo on. they will put advs on the page and will be shared half with the video makers.
but the pool is small…
i thnk youtube has to deal with firstly the copy right issues and also a more proper business model…. for the time being, we still have to do more observations…
originally, want to write something on youtube and v-soical… but no time… ai… more later.
sun,
i didn’t realize signing up the director programme means granting them full rights to publish. maybe youtube think they can do virtually anything they want as any competitor would have to spend a huge amount of time and effort (and perhaps luck) to win over youtube’s users? many users are like ‘rooted’ in this virtual community and i can’t imagine how such a population could move or migrate…
fine, users are always free to move around but moving also means starting all over again. i just don’t think moving would make sense for those who have earned their credibility and built their cyber-socio-personal networks in any given website.
for me this is one of the trickiest issues of the whole web 2.0 thing. although most web 2.0 websites claim that they only provide platforms on which users can create and share contents and interact, after all, the ways in which the platforms organize the mechanical relationships or networks between users are controlled and (to an extent) owned by the ones who have the rights to close down or sell the platforms. if we look at the issue this way, the whole approach is like playing a derived version of monopoly and is not that bottom-up…
p.s. when you have time and energy to write, let me know la
[...] British Council’s think tank Counterpoint has commissioned Rosemary Bechler [...]
yes la, this is exactly what i am thinking.
i sturggling a lot whether i should use youtube for the new ahsun fan cook. as i think it has become such an monopoly. and as you said, so much a irony to what web 2.0 ideals can go… i really don’t think another site can compete with youtube now… it has become so hugh.
i started to feel bad about using youtube, it is like buying in pakin shops…
it seems like it is a bottom up idea, the more i think and especially when i become a USER/DIR for the platform i have so many other things to consider… it has become a choice of whether i want to stick to it so that i can get more audience, or choose other platform that hk people don’t know at all…
in a way, even podcasting has the same problem, with itunes and ipod…
really want to write something on it. let’s talk more tomorrow
i’ve finsihed the phd proposal finally and have more time now
before another freelance reaches me next week…
[...] in internet﹕創作共用的爭議 談工業代表對 CC 的誤解，以及 BBC 積極面對分享熱潮的例子。 [...]