| dc.contributor | 哲學系 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 鄭光明 | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2017-10 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 15-八月-2024 09:04:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 15-八月-2024 09:04:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 15-八月-2024 09:04:09 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153016 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 依「言論自由一軸觀」，言論自由是一種消極自由；此外，「智慧財產權」及「言論自 由」更是自由社會所珍視的兩大重要價值，而且美國最高法院更把智慧財產權視為「言 論自由的引擎」(the engine of free expression)，因為美國最高法院認為智慧財產權可以為 言論的創造及散播提供有效的誘因。既然如此，「智慧財產權」及「言論自由」兩者間 理應不存在著衝突才是。然而筆者要追問：兩者真的不存在著任何衝突嗎？事實上，對 於上述問題，自從1970年代開始，在美國學界，許多哲學家早已提出其看法，而這些 看法卻從未受到包括台灣在內的華人哲學學界所重視。在1970年，智慧財產權及言論 自由理論大師寧姆（Melville Nimmer)率先指出：「智慧財產權」及「言論自由」兩者 間其實存在著衝突，而且此一衝突竟長久遭到忽略。對此，當代反對智慧財產權的理論 大將聶他那（Neil Weinstock Netanel)及海丁格（Edwin Hettinger)也深表同意。聶他那 指出：自從彌爾頓（John Milton)的〈論出版自由：不被審查之言論〉（Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing) 一文後，「言論自由」與「智慧財產權（或 版權，即copyright)」之間即構成既相輔相成、又互相衝突之緊張關係。如果「智慧財 產權」及「言論自由」兩者間竟然如寧姆、海丁格及聶他那所言存在著衝突，那麼自由 主義者所珍視、視為不可撼動信條的言論自由，其內部邏輯是否有不一致之處？另一方 面，如果「智慧財產權」及「言論自由」兩者間並不存在著衝突，那麼自由主義者又如 何從哲學觀點刻劃、定義「言論自由」此一概念，以便使得它和作為「言論自由的引擎」 的「智慧財產權」保持邏輯上的一致？上述問題正是此一研究計畫之核心問題。由於上 述問題牽涉到自由社會兩大價值（「智慧財產權」及「言論自由」）間的衝突及其解決 之道，而且上述問題並不是法律問題，而是哲學問題；為此，筆者打算從哲學角度（而 不是法律角度）深入研究上述問題。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The U. S. supreme court has famously labeled intellectual property right (or copyright) “the engine of free expression.” Intellectual property right, the Court tells us, provides a vital economic incentive for the creation and distribution of speech that makes up our public discourse. Those who valued creative expression happily favored both private intellectual property right and rigorous freedom of speech without perceiving any potential tension between the two. That sanguine view first questioned by Melville Nimmer, the leading copyright and First Amendment scholar, in his 1970 article. He termed the intellectual property right (or copyright)-free speech conflict a “largely ignored paradox.” Edwin C. Hettinger and Neil Weinstock Netanel also agree with Nimmer that there is a copyright-free speech conflict and correctly point out that intellectual property right burdens speech. We often copy or build upon another’s words, images, or music to convey our own ideas effectively. We cannot do that if an intellectual property right holder withholds permission or insists upon a license fee that is beyond our means. Private intellectual property right is thus a potential impediment to free expression no less than an “engine of free expression.” In this project, I will discuss Nimmer’s copyright-free speech conflict. Why has the conflict between copyright and free speech come so virulently to the fore? What values and practices does it put at stake? How should the conflict be resolved? These are the principal questions this project seeks to answer. | |
| dc.format.extent | 116 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 科技部, MOST103-2410-H004-170-MY3, 103.08-106.07 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 言論自由（freedom of speech); 智慧財產權（intellectual property right); 消極自 由（negative liberty); 海丁格（Edwin C; Hettinger); 自然權利論證（the natural rights argument); 洛克的但書（the Lockean provisos); 聶他那（Neil Weinstock Netanel); 寧姆 (Melville Nimmer); 休斯（Justin Hughes) | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | freedom of speech; John L. Austin’s speech acts theory; P. F. Strawson; conventional illocutions; intentional illocutions | |
| dc.title (題名) | 消極自由、言論自由及洛克的但書：言論自由的引擎及其邏輯 | |
| dc.title (題名) | Negative Liberty, Freedom of Speech and the Lockean Provisos: The Engine of Free Speech and Its Logic | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | |
