没文化·如果他们生在网络时代之——顾准
作为“丧家之犬”，顾准的声音很小，这声音竟然奇迹般地存活，依靠的不是硬盘和Ctrl+C，而是手工的誊抄。有趣的是，从这些和电脑毫无缘份的文字里，我竟闻到了Blogger们的体味——如果顾准生在网络时代，他一定是一位Blogger。而且，他不但是一个Blogger，还会是一个占领众多收藏夹的Blogger——别的不说，单是“娜拉出走以后怎样”这样诗性的追问，有几个自诩标题党的人能想得出，即使想得出，又有几个人能想下去？
垃圾广告骚扰郑老师
今天写东西参考到郑成思老师的书，想起他过早地走了，不免又有点难过，随手翻了一下我blog上有关他去世的日志，点进悼念留言中，却发现里面从第215页开始到第296页，充斥着垃圾广告。。。。唉，这个垃圾广告，不能靠技术手段（道高一尺，魔高一丈），只能靠法律制裁——很简单，根据现在的广告法，这些广告全都没有广告许可证，只要是商业广告，就应该行政处罚。再联想起采用Opt-In原则的中国反SPAM立法，难道又是了一个“高标准、难要求”的摆设？工商局招不招人？给我台上网的电脑和官袍，我帮你们挣罚款……
对支持所谓博客实名制的种种论调的反驳
以下是fyfz.cn论坛上，支持所谓博客实名制的一些言论，原帖地址：
http://bbs.fyfz.cn/dispdetail.aspx?bbsid=8856&catid=2
蓝色是别人的论点，下面是我的反驳：
第1楼 作者： 欲海无舵 发表于 2006-10-20 12:52:39
赞成实名制，这样可以减一减中国人的虚伪，只敢在一个假的名字背后乱说话。但是实名主要是为了杜绝侮辱漫骂等非理性的的言论。而“不能因为网络自由就口无遮拦，大发一些缺乏理性的言论”说的略为过火，在网上发泄一下还是应该允许的。发牢骚对别人也没有危害。
可不可以稍微专业一点？
“11月25日，湖南作家李树型在北京召开记者会，宣称《墨攻》原本是他编剧，但公映后，片中“编剧导演”却变成了张之亮一个人。他已经请了律师，正式状告张之亮的剧本侵权。李树型的律师张女士表示，他们将根据张之亮的反应来决定是告其侵犯署名权还是著作权。而张之亮方面则表示，“一切都合法合理”，不存在侵权之说。”
——《南方都市报》：《墨攻》涉嫌侵权 文/彭晓华、徐词
……可不可以稍微专业一点点。
Blawg.Org turns to Blawg.Com
Blawg.org has changed its face to Blawg.com. It is now a free source of legal feeds. Many bloggers have/are adding there feeds in. Now it listed more than 1,000 blawgs and among them, 150 or more are talking about the law other than the US. However, in it’s registration steps, Blawg.com seems a website believes all blawggers are stay in the U.S.
Anyway, it is a good improvement for the site.
苏格拉底的鞋匠：虚弱的法学与堕落的法学院
此文本不用推荐，它早就传开了。但今天把苏格拉底的鞋匠作为每日法律博客推荐，所以就专门写个帖子。
《虚弱的法学和堕落的法学院——中国大陆著名法学院评介》
作者：苏格拉底的鞋匠
前言这是一个混沌的江湖，如果把法学界视作一个江湖的话。
但是，《东邪西毒》教导我们，有人的地方就有江湖。所以，即使虚弱混沌，但还是江湖。只不过它的大号叫做法学界。
是江湖，就有座次。
法学院也不例外。
传说中，有两所叫做东吴和朝阳的法学院，他们最大的遗憾是前不见古人，后不见来者。
所以，他们仍然在传说中沉默。
有时，在梦里，依稀能看见东吴师生的眼睛。泪眼婆娑。
因为，很多年以后，在古城苏州。有个叫做苏州大学法学院的自称其延续了东吴法学。
那一天，大雨倾盆。原来江湖变了。
点下面的链接看全文：
虚弱的法学和堕落的法学院之一至五（人大法学院、北大法学院、武大法学院、中国政法大学）
图片为豆子所加，作者g.originals。
如果墨守成规拍墨攻……
我看电影前从来不做功课，凭感觉。根本不知道《墨攻》是由日本小人书改编的，加上其英文名又是“Battle of Wits”，就更想当然地以为就是在讲“墨守成规”中的“墨守”的故事。
“墨守”的故事倒的确是在小人书上看的（不是日本小人书，是80年代初中国的成语故事）。说的是各国都在科技建军，楚国有个工程师叫公输般，发明了强大的战争工具（以云梯为代表，威力就好比现在的远程精确制导导弹），于是楚王准备借新武器伐宋。主张兼爱非攻的墨翟为了劝楚王放弃战争，就约公输般玩兵棋推演给楚王看。公输般用了九种战法，但墨翟都有因应之术。公输般最后对楚王说，我还有一个办法，墨翟说你这第十种办法我也早准备好了。楚王问是什么，墨翟说无非就是杀了我，但死了墨老三，还有后来人（我瞎编的，不知道是不是老三），我早把我的技术教给学生了。楚王一听，就只好放弃攻打宋国，于是一场战争因而避免。
其实拿这个故事拍电影也挺有意思的，把那些战争的场面、谋略的较量都实际演出来，而且一定要惨烈、血腥、震撼并充满越峰回路转，最后来个倒叙，让观众最后才明白，原来是两个老男人在玩即时战略游戏，释怀的同时更能珍惜手中的幸福、领略兼爱非攻的道理。（而且还能充分解释类似黑奴呀、热气球呀一类东西——游戏嘛，存在于意识中，当然可以超现实，呵呵。）
不扯了说正经的。虽然没按上面的思路，但这部片子也起码还是把故事讲清楚了——吃惯了近两年那些古装大片的恶心饭，只要比它们稍微好点就该感激上苍了，谁让我们生在这无极的年代呢——这就是我推荐墨攻的原因。
刘德华演帮助弱小的梁国守城的墨者革离。估计是受日本小人书影响，打扮得有点像忘了戴壳的忍者神龟，但是说良心话他演得很努力，基本让人们忘了刘德华，只把他当成革离——直到最后牵着小孩子走的镜头出现的时候，才让我想起“班尼路”。其它的各种演员也都相当进入角色，即使是很多人诟病的范冰冰，其实也还是中规中矩（问题不出在她，而是出在导演和编剧）。表现最好的要算演梁王的王志文了，那对比我还小的眼睛加上宽宽的眼带，以及肿而不臃的步态，相当传神地演绎出一个荒淫残暴但不昏庸的专制者形象。
具体情节就不说了，不过我可以向没看过的人保证，看完以后，你不至于一头雾水。这140分钟里，战争场面可以说拍得相当好看，并且一点都不拖沓。相对来说，爱情戏则显得有点冗长（特别是找地牢里的范冰冰那场，根本没有必要，导演似乎没弄明白：兼爱的爱，是爱所有人、爱人道的爱而不是做爱的爱）。比较遗憾的是，本来最应该下工夫的几场戏没处理到位，让人觉得被剪辑掉了什么似的：一是梁王让连介绍信都没有带的革离统领所有兵马的过程显得有点突兀；二是修筑瓮城前关于拆除皇宫的争论，本来可以非常漂亮地将儒家推崇的王权礼仪与墨家强调的反对奢侈、重视民众的矛盾演绎出来；三是革离对自己所信仰的思想产生怀疑的过程，要么不拍，要拍就不能那么简单。
总之，这部电影还是值得到电影院看看的。尽管它不会让你弄清楚什么是兼爱非攻，但至少还能讲给你一个有趣的打仗的故事。
链客豆子：三篇网络法和著作权法论文
李健：博客著作权保护之我见——以《信息网络传播权保护条例》为考察视角
内容：希望从对博客的概念及表现特征等层面阐述之基础上结合该条例来分析博客的著作权保护问题。
读后感：
，有些道理但论证得比较简单。
张樊：博客技术与版权保护
内容：网络的技术发展，让博客的文章被复制转载甚至是被盗用变得很简单……其实诉讼仅仅是一个事后救济手段……最为直接的保护应该是事前的……完全能够从技术上去保障博客的权利……
读后感：
。观点有道理，但还是有些有失片面，技术有作用，但核心问题不是技术去保护博客中的作品，而是博客这种东西的技术安排本来就不是为了“All Rights Reserved”所设计的，其中的各种技术安排都是为了更好的传播思想。点这里看我的相关日志。
魏衍亮：peer to peer (p2p对等网络)知识产权问题浅析
内容：通过研究对等网络领域的版权诉讼动态、产业发展动态，本文回答了一些重要问题。例如：ISP在数字音乐传播中怎样规避版权直接、辅助、代理侵权责任？什么是合法的在线试听？ISP和终端用户的哪些行为构成版权法上的合理使用、家庭使用、时空转移？终端用户得就哪些网络行为承担版权侵权责任？对等网络中的版权市场有否继续发展的法律和技术空间？对这些问题的初步解答有助于我国企业、法院、政府对网络音乐版权市场的发展采取适当的对策。
读后感：。本文对美国的相关制度进行了介绍，然后又对中国的制度进行了评价。具有相当高的资料索引价值。
“华人第一成人社区”案一审宣判
“华人第一成人社区”覆灭 注册会员达26万(图)
http://www.sx.xinhuanet.com/fuwu/phb/2005-11/22/content_5653900.htm
“华人第一成人社区”特大淫秽色情网站案一审宣判
http://www.sx.xinhuanet.com/jrtt/2006-11/23/content_8594410.htm
HK Legislation on the Cyber Crimes
1. Laws against Hacking (Unauthorized Access, Access with Criminal Intent)
There are two offences under the laws of Hong Kong aiming at "Hacking" activities:-
- Cap.106 S.27a – Unauthorised access to computer by telecommunication
- Cap.200 S.161- Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent
- CAP 106 TELECOMMUNICATIONS orDINANCE
- Section 27A – Unauthorized access to computer by telecommunications – 16/06/2000
|
Section Num:
|
27A
|
Version Date
|
16/06/2000
|
|
Heading
|
Unauthorized access to computer by telecommunications
|
||
(1) Any person who, by telecommunications, knowingly causes a
computer to perform any function to obtain unauthorized access to any
program or data held in a computer commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine of $20000. (Amended 36 of 2000 s. 28)
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)-
(a) the intent of the person need not be directed at-
(i) any particular program or data;
(ii) a program or data of a particular kind; or
(iii) a program or data held in a particular computer;
(b) access of any kind by a person to any program or data held in a
computer is unauthorized if he is not entitled to control access of the
kind in question to the program or data held in the computer and-
(i) he has not been authorized to obtain access of the kind in
question to the program or data held in the computer by any person who is
so entitled;
(ii) he does not believe that he has been so authorized; and
(iii) he does not believe that he would have been so authorized if
he had applied for the appropriate authority.
(3) Subsection (1) has effect without prejudice to any law relating
to powers of inspection, search or seizure.
(4) Notwithstanding section 26 of the Magistrates ordinance (Cap
227), proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any
time within 3 years of the commission of the offence or within 6 months of
the discovery of the offence by the prosecutor, whichever period expires
first.
(Added 23 of 1993 s. 2)
————–
- CAP 200 CRIMES orDINANCE
- Section 161 – Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent – 30/06/1997
|
Section Num:
|
161
|
Version Date
|
30/06/1997
|
|
Heading
|
Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent
|
|
|
(1) Any person who obtains access to a computer-
(a) with intent to commit an offence;
(b) with a dishonest intent to deceive;
(c) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or
(d) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another,
whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future
occasion, commits an offence and is liable on conviction upon indictment
to imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) "gain" (獲益) and "loss" (損失)
are to be construed as extending not only to gain or loss in money or
other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether
temporary or permanent; and-
(a) "gain" (獲益) includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as
a gain by getting what one has not; and
(b) "loss" (損失) includes a loss by not getting what one might get,
as well as a loss by parting with what one has.
(Added 23 of 1993 s. 5)
2. Laws against Criminal Damage
- Section 59 – Interpretation – 30/06/1997
|
Section Num:
|
59
|
Version Date
|
30/06/1997
|
|
Heading
|
Interpretation
|
||
PART VIII
CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(1) In this Part, "property" (財產) means–
(a) property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal,
including money and-
(i) including wild creatures which have been tamed or are
ordinarily kept in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their
carcasses if, but only if, they have been reduced into possession which
has not been lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into
possession; but
(ii) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land or flowers,
fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land; or
(b) any program, or data, held in a computer or in a computer
storage medium, whether or not the program or data is property of a
tangible nature.
In this subsection, "mushroom" (菌類植物) includes any fungus and "plant" (植物) includes any shrub or tree. (Replaced 23 of 1993 s. 3)
(1A) In this Part, "to destroy or damage any property" (摧毀或損壞財產) in
relation to a computer includes the misuse of a computer.
In this subsection, "misuse of a computer" (誤用電腦) means-
(a) to cause a computer to function other than as it has been established to function by or on behalf of its owner, notwithstanding that the misuse may not impair the operation of the computer or a program held in the computer or the reliability of data held in the computer;
(b) to alter or erase any program or data held in a computer or in
a computer storage medium;
(c) to add any program or data to the contents of a computer or of
a computer storage medium, and any act which contributes towards causing the misuse of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) shall be regarded as causing it. (Added 23 of 1993 s. 3)
(2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as belonging to any person-
(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an
equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an
interest); or
(c) having a charge on it.
(3) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be so treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.
(4) Property of a corporation sole shall be so treated as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.
(Added 48 of 1972 s. 3)
[cf. 1971 c. 48 s. 10 U.K.]
————
- Section 60 – Destroying or damaging property – 30/06/1997
|
Section Num:
|
60
|
Version Date
|
30/06/1997
|
|
Heading
|
Destroying or damaging property
|
||
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another-
(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.
(Added 48 of 1972 s. 3)
[cf. 1971 c. 48 s. 1 U.K.]