Why All Melodies Should Be Free for Musicians to Use | Damien Riehl | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

I'm going to tell you a true story,

我要說個真實的故事， 但我不要用主角的名字，

but instead of the name of the protagonist,

請各位想想你最愛的藝術家， 你最愛的音樂家，

think about your favorite artist.

Think about your favorite musician,

and think about your favorite song by that musician.

及你最喜歡那位音樂家的哪首歌。

Think about them bringing that song from nothing to something into your ears

想想他們從無到有創作出 那首你聽到的歌，

and bringing you so much joy.

帶給你好多喜悅。

現在想想你最愛的音樂家被告，

Now think about your favorite musician getting sued, and that lawyer saying,

那位律師說：

"I represent this group.

「我代表這個團體。我認為你聽到 他們的歌後才寫了你的歌。

I think you heard their song and then you wrote yours.

你侵犯了他們的版權。」

You violated their copyright."

And imagine your musician saying, "No, it's not true.

想像你的音樂家說：「不是這樣的。

我從沒聽過那首歌。

I don't think I've ever heard that song.

就算聽過，我在寫我的歌時 也肯定沒有想著它。」

But even if I did,

I certainly wasn't thinking about them when I made my song."

想像這個案件上了法庭， 法官說：「我相信你，音樂家，

Imagine the case going to trial and a judge saying, "I believe you,

我不認為你是有意識地 抄襲那個團體。

I don't think you consciously copied that group.

但我認為你在潛意識中抄襲了他們。

But what I think did happen is you subconsciously copied them.

You violated the copyright, and you have to pay them a lot of money.”

你侵犯了版權， 你得付他們很多錢。」

想想看，那樣公平嗎？那樣公正嗎？

Think about whether that's fair or just.

This actually happened to George Harrison, the lead guitarist of The Beatles,

披頭四的主奏吉他手 喬治‧哈里森就遇到了這種事，

那個團體是雪紡，她們有一首歌：

and the group was The Chiffons,

who's had a song "He's so fine, oh so fine."

「他真好，喔，真好。」

And George Harrison had a song,

而喬治‧哈里森的 歌是：「我親愛的主，

"My sweet Lord, oh, sweet Lord."

喔，親愛的主。」

But what neither George Harrison nor The Chiffons nor the judge, really,

但，喬治‧哈里森、雪紡、 法官，其實根本是任何人

nor anybody else had considered, is maybe since the beginning of time,

都沒有想到，也許從有史以來，

the number of melodies is remarkably finite.

旋律的數目就是非常有限的。

Maybe there are only so many melodies in this world.

也許世界上就只有那麼多旋律。

And The Chiffons, when they picked their melody,

而雪紡在挑選旋律時，

plucked it from that already existing finite melodic data set.

從既有的有限旋律 資料集當中挑出了它。

And George Harrison happened to have plucked the same melody

而喬治‧哈里森就剛好

也從同樣的有限旋律資料集 當中挑中了同樣的旋律。

from that same finite melodic data set.

This is a different way of thinking about music

法官和律師都沒有從這種角度 思考過音樂，連音樂家也沒有。

in a way that judges and lawyers nor musicians have thought about.

因為些團體只會認為音樂家從 他們自己的創意泉源中竊取，

Because when those groups have thought about musicians,

they think about them drawing from their own creative wellspring,

從無到有創作出來。

bringing from nothing, something into the world.

他們有一張空白頁，可以 把他們的創意揮灑在上面。

They have a blank page upon which they can put their creativity.

不是這樣的。

That's actually not true.

喬治‧哈里森知道，你得 避開所有已被寫出來的歌，

As George Harrison realized,

you have to avoid every song that's ever been written,

如果沒做到，就會被告。

because if you don't, you get sued.

如果你從既有旋律中選到的旋律 還沒有人選過，就很幸運。

If you're lucky, you pluck one of those already existing melodies

that hasn't been taken.

不幸運的話，就是有別人用過了。

If you're unlucky, you pluck a melody that's already been taken.

不論你有沒有聽過那首歌， 也許以前從未聽過。

Whether you've heard that song or not, maybe you've never heard it before.

這種情況下，如果你很幸運， 你的共同作曲家或某人會說：

If that happens, if you're lucky,

你知道嗎，那首新歌 聽起來很像那首舊歌。

you have a co-songwriter or somebody who says,

你說：喔，天，謝天謝地。

that new song sounds a lot like that old song.

你在歌曲釋出之前就把它改掉了。

And you change it before it goes out the door.

如果你不夠幸運， 沒有人告訴你這件事，

Now, if you're unlucky, you don't have somebody telling you that,

你把它對全世界公開， 那團體聽到你的歌，就去告你，

you release it out in the world,

the group hears your song and they sue you

為了一首你可能以前 從未聽過的歌曲。

for a song maybe that you've never heard before in your life.

你踩到了旋律地雷。

You've just stepped on a melodic landmine.

The thing is, this is the world before my colleague, Noah Rubin, and I

重點是，

這是我和我同事諾亞‧魯賓 展開我們的計畫之前的世界。

have started our project.

The world now looks like this.

現在的世界是這樣子。

We filled in every melody that's ever existed and ever can exist.

我們填滿了所有曾經出現過 及將來有可能出現的旋律。

Every step is going to be a melodic landmine.

現在每一步都是旋律地雷。

And ironically, this is actually trying to help songwriters.

諷刺的是，這麼做 是在試著協助作曲家。

Let me tell you how.

讓我解釋一下。

I'm a lawyer.

我是律師，2002 年起就在當律師。

I've been a lawyer since 2002.

I've litigated copyright cases, I've taught law school copyright cases.

我打過版權官司，我在 法律學校教過版權案例。

I'm also a musician.

我也是音樂家，有音樂學士學位，

I have a bachelor’s degree in music, I’m a performer,

我是表演者、唱片藝術家， 我也會製作唱片。

I'm a recording artist, and I also produce records.

I'm also a technologist.

我也是科技人員，1985 年開始 寫程式，1995 年寫網路程式。

I've been coding since 1985, for the web since '95.

I’ve done cybersecurity, and I also currently design software.

我做過網路安全工作， 目前也在設計軟體。

So that puts me right in the middle of a Venn diagram

因此我落在維恩圖的中間， 這讓我有一些洞見，

that gives me a few insights that if I were in any one of those areas

是我如果只隸屬其中一個領域 可能就不會有的洞見。

I might not have had.

And my colleague Noah Rubin,

而我的同事諾亞‧魯賓，

in addition to being one of the smartest people I've ever known,

除了是我所認識 最聰明的人之一以外，

他也是音樂家，也是我所認識 最出色的程式設計師之一。

he's also a musician,

and he's also one of the most brilliant programmers I've known.

在工作中，我們有了領悟，各位可能

And between our work,

we came to a realization that you may have had saying,

說過：「你知道那首新歌嗎？ 它很像另一首舊歌。」

"You know that new song?

It sounds a lot like this other old song."

那是有原因的，我們發現， 就只有那麼多旋律，

And there's a reason for that.

We've discovered that there is only so many melodies,

就只有這麼多音符， 能排列的方式就這麼多。

there are only so many notes that can be arranged in so many ways.

那和比如視覺藝術不同，

And that's different than visual art,

因為筆法、顏色， 和主題的數量都無限，

where they're an infinite number of brushstrokes, colors and subjects

that to accidentally do them is very difficult.

很難剛好都一樣。

Similarly with language,

語言也類似，英文就有 十一萬七千個字，

the English language has 117,000 words in it,

so the odds of accidentally writing the same paragraph are next to zero.

不小心寫出同樣一段 文字的機率幾乎是零。

In contrast,

相對的，

music doesn't have 117,000 words.

音樂沒有十一萬七千個字。

Music has eight notes.

音樂只有八個音符。

Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, Do.

Do、Re、Mi、Fa、 Sol、La、Ti、Do。

One two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

一、二、三、四、五、六、七、八。

所有現存及未來可能出現的熱門旋律

And every popular melody that's ever existed and ever can exist

is those eight notes.

都是用那八個音符組成。

Now, it's remarkably small.

這個範圍小得驚人。 我做過網路安全，我知道

I worked in cybersecurity,

and I know if I wanted to attack your password and hack your password,

如果我想要攻擊竊取 你的密碼，其中一個做法

one way to do it is to use a computer to really quickly say aaaa. No?

就是用電腦很快地試，比如

AAA，不是？AAB？AAC？

Aab, aac,

And to keep running until it hits your password.

一直試到猜出你的密碼。

That's called brute-forcing a password.

那叫做暴力破解法。

So I thought, what if you could brute force melodies?

於是，我想，如果 你能暴力破解旋律呢？

如果你可以，比如， Do-Do-Do-Do、Do-Do-Do-Re、

What if you could say, Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re,

Do-Do-Do-Mi.

Do-Do-Do-Mi、Do-Do-Do-Fa。

把所有可能的旋律都排列出來。

And then exhaust every melody that's ever been.

And the way the computers read music is called MIDI.

電腦讀音樂的方式稱為 MIDI。

And in MIDI it looks like this Do-Do-Do-Do, Do-Do-Do-Re.

在 MIDI 中是這樣子的： Do-Do-Do-Do、Do-Do-Do-Re。

So I approached my colleague Noah,

於是我去找我同事諾亞，說： 「諾亞，你能否寫個演算法，

I said, Noah, can you write an algorithm

to be able to march through every melody that's ever existed

列出所有曾經出現過及未來 可能出現的旋律？」

and ever can exist?

他說：「行，我可以。」

He said, "Yeah, I could do that."

So at a rate of 300,000 melodies per second,

於是，以每秒鐘 三十萬個旋律的速度，

he wrote a program to write to disk every melody that's ever existed

他設計了一個程式，在硬碟中寫入

所有曾經出現過 和將來可能出現的旋律。

and ever can exist.

And in my hand right now is every melody that's ever existed

現在我手上的就是所有曾經 出現過和將來可能出現的旋律。

and ever can exist.

And the thing is, to be copyrighted,

重點是，要取得版權， 你不需要做什麼正式的事。

you don't have to do anything formal.

As soon as it's written to a fixed, tangible medium, this hard drive,

只要旋律寫入了實體的 媒體當中，即這個硬碟，

就自動有版權了。

it's copyrighted automatically.

Now, this leaves copyright law with a very interesting question,

這就丟了一個非常 有趣的問題給版權法，

because you think about the world before

因為，想想以前的世界，

and songwriters had to avoid every song that's ever been written, in red.

作曲家必須要避開已經有人 寫過的歌，即紅色的部分。

Noah and I have exhausted the entire melodic copyright.

諾亞和我把所有的 旋律版權都包下來了。

So if you superimpose the songs that have been written, in red,

如果你把已經寫出來的歌（紅色） 和還沒有人寫的歌疊在一起，

with the songs that haven't yet been written,

就出現了有趣的問題：

you have an interesting question:

我們是否侵犯了所有 被創作出來的旋律？

Have we infringed every melody that's ever been?

And in the future, every songwriter that writes in the green spots,

在未來，當作曲家 寫出綠色區域的旋律，

是否就侵犯了我們的版權？

have they infringed us?

Now, you might think at this point,

此時，各位可能在想，你是想 攻下全世界的版權酸民嗎？

are you some sort of copyright troll that's trying to take over the world?

我會說，不是，絕對不是。

And I would say, no, absolutely not.

事實剛好相反。

In fact, the opposite is true.

Noah and I are songwriters ourselves.

我和諾亞本身都是作曲家。

We want to make the world better for songwriters.

我們希望世界對作曲家更友善。

So what we've done is we're taking everything

我們的做法是，把一切 都放到公有領域去。

and putting it in the public domain.

We're trying to keep space open for songwriters

我們希望讓作曲家一直 擁有開放的創作空間。

to be able to make music.

我們的焦點不是歌詞， 不是錄音，而是旋律。

And we're not focused on the lyrics,

we're not focused on recording, we're focused on melodies.

重點是，我們能用的旋律快沒了。

And the thing is, we're running out of melodies that we can use.

版權系統出了問題，它需要更新。

The copyright system is broken and it needs updating.

我們在工作上得到的洞見包括

Some of the insights that we've received as part of our work

對電腦來說，旋律只是數字，

is that melodies to a computer are just numbers

because those melodies have existed since the beginning of time,

因為，從有史以來 那些旋律就存在了，

and we're only just discovering them.

我們只是發現它們。

So the melody Do-Re-Mi-Re-Do to a computer is literally 1-2-3-2-1.

所以，Do-Re-Mi-Re-Do 這段旋律

對電腦而言就只是 1-2-3-2-1。

So really the number 1-2-3-2-1 is just a number.

所以，1-2-3-2-1 其實 就只是數字，數學。

It's just math that's been existing since the beginning of time.

從有史以來就存在了。

And under the copyright laws, numbers are facts.

根據版權法，數字屬於事實。

And under copyright law, facts either have thin copyright,

且根據版權法，事實

只會有很少的版權、 幾乎沒版權，或完全沒版權。

almost no copyright or no copyright at all.

So maybe if these numbers have existed since the beginning of time

所以也許如果有史以來就有 這些數字，我們只是挑出它們，

where we're just plucking them out,

maybe melodies are just math,

也許，旋律只是數學，也就是事實，

which is just facts, which maybe are not copyrightable.

可能不能有版權。

Maybe if somebody's suing over a melody alone,

也許，如果單單針對旋律提告，

not lyrics, not recordings,

不是歌詞，不是錄製品， 就只針對旋律，

but just the melody alone,

也許這類案件會消失。 也許不會被受理。

maybe those cases go away.

Maybe they get dismissed.

Now you might say, well, what constitutes a melody?

各位可能會說，旋律是什麼構成的？

我們一開始打算把 所有的鋼琴鍵都拿來用，

And we were initially going to take the entire piano keyboard

and be able to do the entire keyboard.

但我們想把焦點放在 兩個八度音階的人聲音域上。

But we thought, let's focus on the vocal range,

which is actually two octaves.

接著，我們想，流行音樂就夠了，

And then we thought, no, actually we're thinking about pop music,

因為針對流行音樂提告才可能賺錢。

which is the only thing that makes money that people sue over.

於是我們轉向音樂學家， 他們辯論過什麼是

So we looked at musicologists,

旋律動機，短旋律 v.s. 長旋律。

and they have debated what is a motif, a short melody versus a longer melody.

我們決定用十二個音符。

And we landed with 12 notes.

接著，我們將那數字比對 被提告或被威脅要提告的歌曲。

And then we superimposed that number with songs that have either been litigated

比如，雪坊有「他真好，喔，真好」。

or threatened to be litigated.

For example, The Chiffons had “He’s so fine, oh so fine.”

Versus “My sweet Lord, Oh, sweet Lord.”

對上「我親愛的主，喔，親愛的主。」

Eight notes.

八個音符。

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.

嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.

嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟。

That's so close.

好接近。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"Oh, I won't back down.

「喔，我不會退縮。

No, I won't back down."

不，我不會退縮。」

Versus “Won’t you stay with me

對上

「你不會陪著我嗎，

'cause you're all I need."

因為我需要的只有你。」

Ten notes.

十個音符。

Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo.

嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟。

Versus Katy Perry's

對上凱蒂佩芮的

Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo, doo.

嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟。

Last two notes are different.

最後兩個音符不同，陪審團 不在乎，兩百八十萬美金。

The jury didn't care, 2.8 million dollars.

Audience: Ooh.

觀眾：哇喔。

DR: So every song within that is within our parameters of eight notes up,

講者：在那之內的每首歌 都在我們的參數內，

向上八個音符，大調和小調，

major and minor, 12 notes across.

橫向十二個音符。

So what you see in red is every popular melody

各位看到的紅色區域

就是曾經出現過及將來 可能出現的所有流行旋律。

that's ever existed and ever can exist.

So all Noah and I had to do is to be able to exhaust that remarkably finite,

我和諾亞需要做的就是要能列出

那非常有限、非常小的 資料集所有的內容。

remarkably small data set.

There aren't that many of them.

沒有那麼多旋律。

向上八個，橫向十二個。

Eight up, 12 across.

You might say, Damien, songs are more than just melodies, there's chords too.

你可能會說，戴米恩， 歌不只是旋律，還有和弦。

我完全同意，因為 結果發現那樣更簡單。

And I would totally agree with you

because it turns out that that's even easier.

2017 年，彼得‧伯金瑟

In 2017, Peter Burkimsher exhausted every chord.

列出了所有和弦， 現在在 GitHub 可以下載。

You can download it today in GitHub.

我們的焦點卻

We're instead focused not on lyrics, not on recordings,

不是歌詞、錄音，而是旋律。

we're focused on melodies.

And the thing is, we're running out

問題是，旋律不夠了， 因為歌曲並不只是旋律，

because the song isn't just a single melody,

but there are many parts to a song,

歌曲包含許多部分，而每一個部分

and each part of that song can have many motifs and melodies within it.

可能包含許多旋律動機和旋律。

一首歌可能有高達 十種旋律和旋律動機。

So each song can have up to ten melodies and motifs.

So SoundCloud, which is a way that musicians can upload to this website

音樂家可以把作品上傳到 SoundCloud 網站來發行，

and distribute their work,

目前 SoundCloud 有兩億首歌曲，

SoundCloud currently has 200 million songs,

and the number of open spaces is shrinking exponentially.

剩下的開放空間以指數速度在縮減。

Because every basement musician is recording, and they’re recording

因為每個窩在地下室的 音樂家都在錄音

and they’re uploading it to YouTube, to Spotify

然後上傳到 YouTube、 Spotify、SoundCloud。

and to SoundCloud.

And they are exhausting the entire mathematical data set.

他們會把整個數學資料集給用盡。

They're exhausting the open spaces.

他們會開放空間用盡， 直到完全不剩為止。

until there are not going to be any more left.

What Noah and I have done is we're trying to preserve those spots that are left.

我和諾亞在做的是試圖 保留那些剩餘的空間。

We're trying to be able to take those green spots,

我們試圖將那些綠色區域 放到公有領域，

put them in the public domain

so that other people can be able to make them.

讓其他人可以用，因為快用光了。

Because we're running out.

The thing is we're just getting started because if you go to our website,

我們才剛開始，如果你到 我們的網站 AllTheMusic.info，

AllTheMusic.info, you can not only download all the music we've made,

不僅能下載所有我們 製作的音樂，很多喔，

which is a lot,

你也可以下載我們用的程式，

you can also download the program that we used,

and we're giving away the code for free so you can expand upon our work.

我們免費提供程式碼，讓各位 可以從我們所做的再擴展出去。

Something I didn't tell you is that those eight notes that we did,

有件事我剛才沒有告訴各位： 我們先前用八個音符，

as we speak right now, we've expanded that to 12 notes.

此時此刻，我們正在 擴展到十二個音符。

所以不只是白鍵的音符， 我們連黑鍵也用了。

So instead of just the white notes, now we've got the black notes, too.

So we're covering jazz, classical music,

這樣我們就能納入爵士、古典音樂，

and we think it's only a matter of time before somebody is going to expand that

我們認為，遲早會有人把它 擴展到所有的鋼琴鍵，

to do the entire piano keyboard

把我們的十二個音符擴展到一百個，

and take our 12 notes and expand it to 100

with every rhythmic variation and every chordal variation

搭配所有節奏變化及所有和弦變化，

till our remarkably finite mathematical data set gets further exhausted.

讓我們非常有限的數學資料集

被進一步完整列出。

This is going to happen.

這會發生。

And the thing is, how is the law going to respond?

重點是，法律會怎麼回應？

Because the thing is, we're not focused

因為，我們的重點並不是 某人抄襲前人的旋律。

on somebody copying a previous person's melody.

We're focused instead on somebody accidentally copying a song

我們的重點是某人 不小心抄襲了一首歌，

that they either have heard and forgotten about

他們可能聽過但忘了的歌，

or have never heard before in their lives.

或者從來沒有聽過的歌。

And the chance of landing in an open spot is remarkably small,

且創作要能落在 開放區域的機會相當小，

and it's shrinking every day.

每天都在變小。

And the thing is,

重點是，身為作曲家， 你被告的機率相當高。

the odds of you as a songwriter getting sued are remarkably high.

And if you get sued, you're going want to think about

如果你被告，你就該想想 法官和陪審團會怎麼想。

what a judge or a jury is going to think about,

他們會想兩個問題。

and they are going to think about two questions.

第一個問題是：

The first question is:

Is that previous songwriter’s copyright valid?

先前的作曲家的版權有效嗎？

先前的歌有版權嗎？

Do they even have a copyright in that previous song?

Second question is: Did you infringe their copyright?

第二個問題：你是否 侵犯他們的版權？

針對第一個問題， 也許答案是「沒有」，

So to the first question, maybe the answer to that is no,

because if they're suing just over the melody,

因為他們只針對旋律提告，

也許那段旋律從有史以來就存在了。

maybe that melody's existed since the beginning of time.

也許就只有這麼多音符，

Maybe there are only so many notes that are math, that are not copyrightable.

它們是數學，不可宣告版權。

To the second question did you infringe, there are two sub questions.

第二個是否侵權的問題， 有兩個子問題。

第一：你是否有取得、 聽過先前的那首歌？

The first question is: Did you access, did you hear that previous song?

And if so, are those two songs substantially similar?

如果有，這兩首歌大體上類似嗎？

Now the first question: Did you access or hear that previous song?

第一個問題：你是否有取得、 聽過先前的那首歌？

That's got a lot of problems, it's really problematic.

有很多問題，真的是問題相當多。

And the reason for that is there are only a few cases

原因是因為，只有很少數案例 當事人有明確取得先前的歌。

where access is crystal clear.

比如，約翰‧弗格蒂

For example, John Fogerty was alleged to have infringed John Fogerty

被認為侵犯了清水 合唱團的約翰‧弗格蒂，

when he was part of Creedence.

So clearly John Fogerty had access to John Fogerty songs.

很明顯，約翰‧弗格蒂 能取得約翰‧弗格蒂的歌。

On the opposite end of the spectrum, on no access,

在光譜的另一端，無從取得，

what if a baby were to sing into their toy?

如果寶寶對著玩具唱歌呢？

And again, as soon as the toy recorder happens,

當玩具這個不變的實體媒體開始 錄音時，就會自動產生版權。

it's copyrighted automatically, it's a fixed, tangible medium.

So if a baby starts singing

如果寶寶開始唱嗒嗒嗒嗒嗒嗒嗒嗒，

Da da da da da, da da da da da da.

而一年後，泰勒絲唱：

And a year later, Taylor Swift sings, "I stay up too late.

「我熬夜熬得太晚。 腦中空無一物。」

Got nothing in my brain."

Clearly, Taylor Swift has not infringed that baby

很明顯，泰勒絲沒有 侵犯寶寶的版權，

because Taylor Swift has not heard that baby's recording, OK?

因為泰勒絲沒有聽過寶寶的錄音。

Clear case of no access.

這是明顯無從取得的案例。

But the thing is, almost none of the cases are that clear.

問題是，幾乎沒有案例能那麼明確。

What if there's a question mark

如果無法確定第二個人 是否有聽過那首歌呢？

as to whether the second person heard it or not?

也許有，也許沒有， 也許聽過但忘了。

Maybe they heard it, maybe they didn't.

Maybe they heard it and forgot it.

也許他們是在潛意識裡侵犯版權。

Maybe they subconsciously infringed.

在法律上，這些稱為事實問題。

These are all what the law calls fact questions.

And the thing is, almost every copyright case that comes out is a fact question.

問題是，幾乎每一件 版權案件都是事實問題。

Almost never is it as clear as John Fogerty

幾乎不會有像約翰‧弗格蒂 或泰勒絲那麼清楚的狀況，

or as clear as Taylor Swift.

Almost every case is that middle section,

幾乎每個案件都落在中間， 都是事實問題。

that fact question.

事實問題麻煩之處在於，

And the hard part about fact questions is they're notoriously hard to resolve

在初期要做出判斷 是出名的困難。

at an early stage in the case,

because when you think about a life span of a lawsuit,

因為，想想法律訴訟的整個過程，

it starts out as a cease and desist letter.

一開始是一封警告函。

你若不賠我，我就告你。

You need to pay me or I'll sue you.

它繼續下去，會花上數年。

It goes forward and it's going to take years.

而事實問題要到整個過程的 尾聲才會有答案。

And the thing about fact questions,

they don't get resolved until the end of that process.

那就是喬治‧哈里森的遭遇。 審判後，法官說：

That's what happened to George Harrison.

After trial, the judge said, "I think you subconsciously infringed."

「我認為你在潛意識中侵權了。」

如果你是作曲家， 且以前從未聽過某段旋律，

So if you're a songwriter who's never heard a melody before,

但卻有人來找你，說，嘿， 我認為你抄襲我的歌，

but you are approached by somebody saying you stole their song,

你要怎麼辦？

what are you going to do?

Sam Smith was approached by Tom Petty.

湯姆‧佩蒂去找山姆‧史密斯，

Tom Petty said, “My song ‘Won’t Back Down’ sounds like your ‘Stay with Me.’”

湯姆‧佩蒂說：「我的歌『不退縮』

聽起來很像你的『留下陪我』。」

Sam Smith reportedly responded,

據說山姆‧史密斯回應：

"Hey, man, I've never heard your song before.

「嘿，老兄，我從未聽過你的歌。 你寫的時候我還沒出生。」

That was written before I was born."

But if I was in Sam Smith’s position,

但，如果我是山姆‧史密斯，

I would look at this long road ahead of me and the prospect at the end

我會考慮眼前漫長的路

及預期結果就是法官會說： 「我認為你在潛意識裡侵權了。」

of a judge saying, you know, "I think you subliminally infringed."

So what are you going to do?

你能怎麼辦？

It's not surprising that Sam Smith made Tom Petty a co-songwriter,

並不意外，山姆‧史密斯將 湯姆‧派蒂列為共同作曲家，

giving Tom Petty a lot of his songwriting royalties.

將他寫歌的版稅 分一大部分給湯姆‧派蒂。

Radiohead had a song, "And I'm a creep. I'm a weirdo."

電台司令有一首歌 「我是個討厭鬼，我是個怪胎。」

The Hollies said, "Hey, that sounds like our song."

赫里斯說：「嘿， 那聽起來像我們的歌。」

They made them co-songwriters

他們將他們列為共同作曲家，

Lana Del Rey ironically, had a song that sounds like "Creep."

諷刺的是，拉娜‧德芮有首歌 聽起來像「討厭鬼」，

Offered to make them co-songwriters, reportedly.

據說她提出要將他們 列為共同作曲家。

Katy Perry had a song that she testified

凱蒂‧佩芮有一首歌，

她和她所有的共同作曲家都表明

and all of her co-songwriters testified,

「我以前從未聽過先前的那首歌」，

"I have never heard that previous song before in my life"

and the other side didn't dispute it.

而另一方沒有爭，說：「我們 沒有證據證明他們聽過這首歌，

They say, "We have no evidence that they actually heard the song,

但我們的 YouTube 點閱率有 三百多萬，所以他們一定聽過。」

but we did have three-point-some million YouTube views,

so they must have heard it."

A jury agreed with them and Katy Perry was on the hook for 2.8 million dollars.

陪審團認同他們，而凱蒂‧佩芮 要賠兩百八十萬美金。

Now, if you are an accused songwriter who's never heard the song before,

如果你是被告的作曲家， 但以前從未聽過那首歌，

前是個站不住腳的位置， 你要如何避免被你可能從未

that is an untenable position.

How are you going to avoid getting shaken down

for something that you may have never heard?

聽過的東西給拉下來？

Shouldn't there be an easier way?

沒有比較容易的方式嗎？ 在過程的初期不是該有什麼方式

Shouldn't there be a way that early on in that process

讓法官或律師能夠舉辦 初期的聽證會，來說明

for a judge or a lawyer to be able to have an early evidentiary hearing to say

也許旋律是種數學， 即事實，不能宣告版權。

maybe melodies are math, which are facts which are not copyrightable.

或者，也許，沒有證據 可證明後者聽過前者的歌。

Or maybe there's no evidence showing that this later person

has heard the earlier person's song.

Maybe the idea of subconscious infringement goes by.

也許，潛意識侵權的想法就會消失。

Now if you are a songwriter, you should really care about this

如果你是作曲家，

你該關注這件事，因為，

because each day you are walking in a minefield

你每天都是走在地雷區，

that you didn't even know was there.

而你毫不知情。

You’re trying to avoid every song, whether you’ve heard that song or not.

你試圖避開每一首歌， 不論你有沒有聽過。

我和諾亞在試圖保存那些開放空間，

And Noah and I, we're trying to preserve those open spaces

so that you can be able to make the music in the public domain

讓你可以在公有領域 依你想要的方式做音樂，

in a way that you've always thought it.

問題不是「這首新歌 是否是我創作的？」

The question is not: “Have I made this new song or not?”

Because no song is new.

因為沒有歌是新的。

Noah and I have exhausted the data set.

我和諾亞把資料集整個都用盡了。

The real question:

真正的問題是「我的歌 是在綠色區域還是紅色區域？」

"Is my song a green song, or is my song a red song?"

Or perhaps the real question is:

或，也許，該問的是，

Should you have the blank page that everybody thinks is there

你該不該有一張空白頁，

大家原本都以為存在的空白頁？

in the first place?

If you're a judge or a lawyer,

如果你是法官或律師，

think about having an early evidentiary hearing

考慮一下早點舉辦聽證會， 能夠讓被告可以

to be able to take the evidenciary burden from the defendant

卸下要證明他們從未 聽過那首歌的證明重擔，

to prove negative that they've never heard that song

讓這個重擔回到它該 隸屬的地方：原告，

and bring it back to the plaintiff where it belongs,

that they have to prove that the other side heard the song.

原告必須要證明對方聽過那首歌。

他們也得證明那段旋律不只是事實。

And they have to prove that that melody is more than just a fact.

And if you are a song lover, you should really care about this

如果你是愛歌的聽眾， 你應該要關注這件事，

因為現狀對於作曲家有著寒蟬效應。

because the current state has a chilling effect on songwriters.

Something that I haven't told you is that George Harrison, after the trial,

我還沒跟各位說的是，

在審判之後，喬治‧哈里森 有好一陣子沒有寫歌。

he stopped writing music for a while.

他告訴《滾石》雜誌， 審判後「很難再開始寫歌，因為

He told "Rolling Stone" that, after the trial,

"It's hard to start writing again

because every song I hear sounds like something else."

我聽到的每首歌 聽起來都像別的歌。」

那是有原因的，喬治。

There's a reason for that, George.

因為就只有這麼多音符， 就只有這麼多旋律。

Because there are only so many notes.

There are only so many melodies.

而開放空間正在以指數的速度消失。

And the open spaces are running out exponentially.

Now, ironically, Noah and I have made all the melodies

諷刺的是，我和諾亞 做出了所有的旋律，

and put them into the public domain

將它們放在公有領域，

in an effort to try to give songwriters more freedom,

目的是希望讓作曲家有更多自由，

to be able to make more and more music

能夠寫出更多更多音樂，

and less fear of accidentally stepping on musical landmines.

比較不用害怕不小心 踩到音樂地雷。

Noah and I have made all the music

我和諾亞做出所有的音樂，

to be able to allow future songwriters

讓未來的作曲家

to make all of their music.

能夠做出他們所有的音樂。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）