方舟子剽窃美国教授一案在电邮群体辩论中逐步升级，先后有数位方舟子的支持者参与辩论，然而，在铁的事实面前，方舟子的支持者们只能躲躲闪闪，招架无力。

方舟子的导师出面为方舟子辩护，结果令自己的公信力遭到质疑，再也不敢发声，而其他支持者也往往象方舟子导师Burton教授一样，扔下自己的观点就狼狈而逃。英语中有一句俗语，观点就象屁眼，人人有一个，光有观点没有论证，是没有说服力的。

为方舟子辩护的，多是密西根州立大学的跟他有一定关系的人，或者是匿名网友，其中密西根州立大学昆虫学副教授Zachary Huang悍然声称方舟子的做法无可挑剔，他也会这么做！我要求这位学者给点实证，此人就消失了。

方舟子的支持者的一个典型特点是做事参与讨论偷偷摸摸。方舟子开先河，试图跟Root-Bernstein私了（大家回想他拒绝施一公私下交流的企图那付理直气状的样子吧）。Root-Bernstein不仅拒绝了私了，还把其去信公开化。同样地，方舟子的支持者多回避公开讨论，包括这位密西根州立大学的昆虫学教授，参与讨论的其他人，往往要在Root-Bernstein回复并把回复内容公开后，我们才知道方舟子的水军再次出击了。

方舟子的支持者之被称为水军，因为象Burton与Huang这样的实名支持者，在被还击质问之后，就不敢回复，也不敢采用匿名水军的流氓辩论手段。而方舟子的匿名支持者则无所顾忌，与他们在国内论坛网络上的风格有所不同，他们在Root-Bernstein面前有一定克制，但秉性难改，方舟子的水军因为Root-Bernstein坚持自己的权利，要求方舟子道歉而越来越不耐烦了，他们开始攻击Root-Bernstein，认为Root-Bernstein也有剽窃。

最新的一轮讨论激怒了Root-Bernstein，他愤而指责方舟子90%是剽窃。

在电邮讨论中，根据Root-Bernstein的回复，我们知道水军化名“疯学生”有这么一段为方舟子辩论的讨论。

===========以下内容来自Root-Bernstein教授回复=====================

Quoting Xuesheng Feng <fengx2002@gmail.com>:

 Dear Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein,

 I just read your recent open letters to Dr. Shi-Min Fang online and want to drop a line to express my opinion.
In the letters, you state “One may copy only up to about 200 words, which must be placed in quotation marks and attributed to the original author……” Are you just ignorant? Chinese and English are totally different: one English word can represent several Chinese words or vice versa.  Online blog is more likely to be chat than any types of formal paper.  It would be ridiculous or very idiot to list reference.

By the way, where did you get these advices or ideas - "it never hurts you to credit everyone who might have contributed to your own ideas; it always hurts you to leave anyone out. It never hurts to obtain copyright permission, even if you may not need it; but it always hurts to try to get away without obtaining that permission". They are very educational and should get credit/permission with your argument.

 Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 LCDR FENG

============“疯学生”声讨信结束==========================

大家注意到此人签名跟电邮签名的不同。“疯学生”出言不逊，骂Root-Bernstein是白痴（Idiot），无知（Ignorant），并指责Root-Bernstein教授给出的最好求得允许的建议是剽窃，因为没有取得允许，也没有指出来源。

面对这位胡搅蛮缠的“疯学生”，Root-Bernstein仍然有礼有节地耐心解释：

=============以下内容是Root-Bernstein的公开回复================

Dear LCDR Feng,

Thank  you for your comments. I do realize how different Chinese and English are, which is one reason that I am trying to treat this controversy as an educational one. Copyright laws written in one country are obviously going to be difficult to apply in another when languages differ so fundamentally. So one of the questions we must answer is how to evaluate the extent of the material that one can use from a copyrighted writing in one language when it is translated into another. That is why I also suggested that a percentage basis might make sense. But perhaps there are problems with percentages, too. If you have any positive suggestions, I look forward to hearing them.

As for the advice, it derives from many conversations with many people over many years and observing what happens to people who act in one way or the other. I do not know that anyone has written it down previously, so I can't cite you a reference other than experience. If  you are implying that my advice is copyrighted by someone else somewhere (which seems to be the point of your letter), rather than implying that I am fraudulently presenting my ideas as original to myself, I'd ask you to find me a copyrighted written source that presents my advice in just the way I did. Otherwise, I'll treat your message as a joke, which is what I hope you intended.

SIncerely, Bob Root-Bernstein

================Root-Bernstein公开回复结束=====================

Root-Bernstein很礼貌地回复了“疯学生”的无礼取闹，要他证明其剽窃指控。在中文网络中，方舟子的水军可以把谣言当着事实，假如Root-Bernstein是中国人，方舟子的水军就可以到处宣称Root-Bernstein也剽窃了，甚至可以宣称Root-Bernstein被方舟子打假，现在事后来报复他。打假斗士这张皮真是好皮。

继“疯学生”之后，另一位脸遮十纱的方舟子拥趸上场了。此人曾宣称她可以随时见Root-Bernstein的面，但一直不敢出示真容，据此我估计又是方舟子在密西根州立大学的一位支持者，甚至是他的师妹也说不定。这位“Cluo”女士倒大方了一回，在按下“回复所有人”之后，少有地没有把我等反方人士的电邮给卡嚓掉。

==============Cluo女士在“疯学生”基础上的发挥================

Dear Professor Root-Bernstein:

I believe LCDR Feng was trying to give you an hint that under certain conditions, one may copy a copyrighted work without the permission from the copyright owner, such as works for research and educational purposes. One of these limitations on the rights granted to the copyright holder is called "fair use" (US Copyright law section 107) (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html).  A more restricted version called "fair dealing" generally applies outside the United States.

There are three other important legal points which you may know already:

(1) Scientific research papers are very different from plays, movies, etc., under US copyright law. The National Acadmy of Science and National Academy of Engineering have formed a "Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy", and has published a guide that provides an overview of professional standards in research in 2009. You can find clear definitions of plagiarism, research misconduct, etc. For example, this policy guide says:

"Someone can make fair use of copyrighted material for nonprofit uses, such as research or education, but they cannot use the material in a way that would reduce its market value".

(2) In one of your letters you said:  “One may copy only up to about 200 words". This is not correct. There is no number of words, lines, or notes that the US copyright law has specified. Important questions a court may ask you would be:

Is it a for profit competitor or not? Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it?

(3)  The U.S. Constitution's copyright clause (US Constitution, Article 1 section 8) allows a work to be copied in the public interest to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"  without the permission of the copyright holder. Since the primary purpose of copyright is to foster the dissemination of knowledge rather than to protect the property rights of the creator.

Sincerely,

Aimee Cluo

===============Cluo女士公开讨论的结束======================

这位Cluo女士的发言一如方舟子，看上去正儿八经，象那么回事，结果你一查验，就希奇古怪。美国宪法的第一部（Article 1）是讲立法机构，其第八节（Section 8）是讲议会。（详见http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8）美国是联邦体制，这里是讲议会的权限——最高权力机构权力也是受宪法限制的。其中允许议会立法中有一项是关于版权保护的，全文如下：

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries；
（为促进科学与有用艺术的发展，立法给予并限制作者与发明者相应的作品与创造的独享权的保护期。）

简而言之，美国宪法允许议会立法给予版权保护，并限制保护期限。这一法制精神为国际通用，比如伯尔尼版权公约。这位Cluo女士可以把美国宪法修改得惨不忍睹，方舟子居然好意思指责别人误导Root-Bernstein，乌鸦不知自己黑。

Cluo女士的胡扯彻底激怒了Root-Bernstein，他虽然仍然在礼貌地回复这位不敢露真容，却可以随时见他的方舟子支持者，但他对方舟子的指责升级了。我们嘲笑方舟子老婆学位论文剽窃量超过90%，这里Root-Bernstein大方地把这一数量级赐于了方舟子。

================Root-Bernstein教授公开斥责方舟子剽窃量达到90%==============

【以下译文参照光明网版本并有所订证，寻正注】

Dear Aimee Cluo,
（亲爱的Aimee Cluo女士：）

Now we are getting down to business!
（现在，我们接近打开天窗说亮话的时候了！）

Please explain to me how Dr. Fang's use of my work is "fair"? Under fair use, he has the right to photocopy, translate, or summarize my article for his personal use; I know of no case in which it is considered legitimate "fair use" to reproduce a copyrighted work, translate it, or summarize it for the use of other people, which is precisely what Dr. Fang has done with my work by posting it on his website and reproducing the essay in his books. In addition, it is my understanding that Dr. Fang makes his living from his website and books and therefore that he is not using my material for a non-profit or educational purpose, but for profit.
（请你为我释疑，凭什么说方博士(未经授权)使用我的作品是“公平合理”的？按照公平合理使用的原则，他有权影印，翻译，或总结我的文章为他个人使用（而不公开使用）。 可我从未听说过可以（未经授权）复制、翻译、总结重写受版权保护的作品，用之于众，而被认为是合法的“公平合理使用”，这恰恰是方博士所为， 将我的著作（以他的名义）张贴在他的网站上，并将它复制于他的书中。更有甚者，我的理解是方博士靠他的网站和出版书籍为生，因此他使用我的材料并非是非营利或教育为目的，而恰恰相反，他以之赢利。）

Second, while it is true that various organizations such as the National Academy, have provided their own versions of what constitute scientific fraud, none of these directives replace or override copyright law.  In any case, I have not charged Dr. Fang with scientific fraud; I have charged him with plagiarism and copyright infringement. I don't see how the National Academy guidelines are relevant.
（其次，各种组织机构，比如美国科学院，的确都提供了他们自己的定义科学欺诈的版本，但是这些指南都不能取代著作权法或凌驾著作权法之上。不管怎么说，我并没有指控方博士进行科学欺诈，而是指控他剽窃和侵犯版权。我看不出美国科学院指南与此有何关联。）

Third, there are, in fact, guidelines, at least in the publishing industry, about how many words may be used. I have written many book reviews and have been warned many times by editors not to quote more than a certain amount of a text. This is also something that editors in the US check when one publishes a popular article in a magazine; and it is something that editors check when editing scholarly books. Whether it is law or not, it is common practice. In any case, I'm tired of the issue of 200 words -- everyone who has addressed this issue has failed to address the rest of the paragraph which is about limiting the percentage of material utilized.  Since all but a handful of examples of Dr. Fang's essay are directly from my article, I am charging that Dr. Fang's article is essentially 90% (or somewhere around that percentage) my work.
（第三，事实上，合理使用他人文章内容的字数是有既定准则的，致少在出版业是有的。我写过很多书评，编辑们反复提醒我，引用别人文字内容要有节制，不得超过一定数量。这也是美国编辑们不论是在发表科普文章，或出版学术专著时都反复审核把关的问题。不管有否法文硬性规定，这已是出版业的行规。不管你们怎么想，我已经厌烦那关于200字的讨论了——所有争辩者都忽略了其后的基本原则是引用他人文章内容不能超过一定比例。鉴于方博士的文章除了少数例证外的绝大多数内容都是直接从我的文章获取的，我申明方博士的文章90％左右根本就是抄袭自我的著作。）

Finally, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I sincerely doubt that  your reading of the clause in the constitution can possibly be correct or it would be impossible for any academic to ever copyright (or to enforce copyright) on any of his or her work. Please think carefully about what you are arguing here, because the logical conclusion is that you do not believe in copyrighting anything that might be of educational value or which might be used for the pubic good.  That would mean anyone could copy anything I write and claim it as their own without any legal or moral protections. Is this really what you want to argue?
（最后，我不是一个美国宪法律师，但我怀疑你对相关宪法条文的理解是完全错误的，否则任何学者都不能对其作品申请版权保护（或执行版权）。请仔细想想你的论点是什么？按照你的逻辑，你认为任何可被用于教育或者对公众有用的作品都不能享有版权。这就意味着任何人都可以复制我写的任何东西并宣布是自己的作品而其无需承担任何法律或道义上的责任。这真的是你的立场？）

Sincerely,
真诚地致意，

Bob Root-Bernstein
罗伯特*卢-伯恩斯顿

================Root-Bernstein公开斥责信结束===========================

相关专题：方舟子被指抄袭
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自廖俊林科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-460310-474621.html

上一篇：史上最强民科：在厨房中进行核试验，你会么？
下一篇：甜玉米与玉米