出版与作家生涯2010groklaw.net
合理使用能引用多少字？可能比你和美联社以为的更多
How Many Words is Fair Use? Maybe More Than You and AP Thought
导读
这篇围绕“合理使用到底能引用多少字”展开，评论进一步讨论 Righthaven 式版权索赔：它靠恐吓促成诉前和解，而被告未必没有抗辩空间。对写作者来说，值得读的是它提醒我们，引用篇幅、转载方式和是否事先沟通，都会影响版权风险。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
不要整篇复制他人文章，合理使用没有一条简单的“多少字就安全”的界线。
- 02
引用时只取必要段落，注明作者与来源，并尽量用自己的话转述核心观点。
- 03
收到版权索赔先判断对方主张是否站得住，不要因为害怕诉讼成本就立刻掏钱和解。
- 04
使用他人材料前保留沟通或授权记录，避免陷入“先被起诉、才发现对方从未通知”的被动局面。
HN 评论精选
Righthaven 模式靠恐吓小作者促成和解，法律上或许有依据，但公共政策上不公平。
我对这篇文章的体会是，Righthaven 这种所谓“版权钓鱼”模式依赖恐吓促成诉前和解；如果被盯上的人意识到自己其实有抗辩理由，这套模式就会失灵或停滞。但问题在于，对多数人来说，付几千美元“破财消灾”比打官司更简单便宜——哪怕只是迈出法律战的第一步也要花这么多钱。让我不安的不只是钓鱼本身（Righthaven 确实会先找侵权文章，再找报纸受让权利），更是它的“讨债公司”色彩：这个商业模式本质上靠骚扰小人物，而这些人往往是无意中踩线。法律上这未必能成为抗辩，但它引发公共政策担忧：版权法是否该允许这种结构。法律也许说它对，但就像讨债公司的滥用一样，感觉根本不公平。
grellas查看英文原文
My takeaway from this piece is that the Righthaven model of so-called "copyright trolling" depends on intimidation leading to pre-litigation settlements and will break down or stall if those who are targets of the intimidation just realize that they do have grounds to fight. The problem remains, though, that for most people paying a few thousand as a nuisance payout is simpler and cheaper than going to the expense of a legal fight that will cost that much just for taking the first step or two. The Righthaven model is disturbing to me not so much for its trolling aspects (and it does have those, since Righthaven will, in effect, scout out the terrain, find the offending pieces, and then approach the papers to get assignments on those items) as for its "collection agency" overtones: it is a business model built fundamentally on harassment of small players who more often than not have inadvertently stepped into it without even realizing what they were doing. This is not a defense legally (see this piece for a lawyer-type analysis of why those sued are indeed often in the wrong under current copyright law: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/zelnick-copyright-trolls.html), but it raises public policy concerns about whether copyright law should be so structured as to allow this. The law may say it's right but, as with collection-agency forms of abuse, it feels fundamentally unfair.
别指望个案改变合理使用规则，最稳妥的做法仍是不整篇转载；同时批评未先协商就起诉的制度。
这个案子不太可能在你可用的司法辖区里确立一个重新定义合理使用的先例。既然如此，最好别在这种情况下整篇复制文章。（话虽如此，你因为一篇文章的副本而起诉对方，而副本不是对方发布的、你起诉前也从未通知对方，这很荒唐。这制度坏了。一般来说，在尝试庭外公平协商之前就动用法院救济，应该是不合法的。）
houseabsolute查看英文原文
Seems unlikely that this case is going to set a precedent that redefines fair use in a jurisdiction that will be useful to you. Best not to copy whole articles in that case. (That said, it is idiotic that you can sue someone for a copy of an article that a/ they did not post and b/ you never notified them of before suing them. THAT is broken. It should be illegal in general to utilize the courts for remedy before an equitable agreement is attempted outside the courts.)
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选