.

方舟子母校伯恩斯坦教授怒斥方是民“博士”

.

方舟子拒绝因为剽窃美国教授作品而道歉，相反，处处以语言障碍为契机，误导国内观众，在2011年8月12日方舟子向Root-Bernstein教授偷偷摸摸发信，一是拒认90%抄袭，二是要求退出Root-Bernstein教授发起的批方论坛。Root-Bernstein教授可能气坏了，要冷静之后再回复他，或者因为忙于事务，来不及回复他，导致方舟子以为Root-Bernstein就此要放他一马，于是乎得意洋洋地在自己的微博中把相关信件发了出来，显示自己好象给予了适当交待。

面对方舟子的无耻与赖皮，Root-Bernstein再次地不留情面，给予了“中国的打假第一人”以重责。以下是Root-Bernstein教授公开信全文（蓝色为译文）：

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Dr. Fang,（亲爱的方博士）

What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don't play by anyone's rules but your own anyway?

（真是一个大笑话！如果我坚持把你的来信及回信公开，你就威胁要退出讨论？首先，如果不公之于众，我写的那些公开信还能叫公开信吗？其次，你本来就几乎从不参加讨论，你的威胁有意义吗？第三，我以为你的事业就是帮助中国发现与揭露不论何时何地的造假，那么你为什么拒绝参加一个针对什么是剽窃与侵犯版权的公开讨论？最后，最重要的是，你背着我一直在你的网站与中国媒体上攻击我，你怎么有脸要求我不公开你的信件？因此，无庸置疑，此信发给每个人，你要干什么，随你。你除了自定规则，是不遵守别人的规则的。）

You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there's a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.

(你质问我从何处得到你剽窃我的文章达到90%的结论，抗议说绝不会超过50%。好吧，我简捷明快地回答你：显然，我从未见识到你的全部文章，包括你递送的文本！你应该记得寄给我你文章的译文，它并非全文。因此，如果我误解了你窃取了多少我的文章，你跟其他人一样难辞其疚。)

In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone, including you, agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.

（不管怎么说，起码我们讨论的是你的文章窃取了多少我的内容。对此，你的自称支持者之一（见所附电邮）还将之定量在60%。不管我们怎么看这个问题，所有人，包括你自己，都同意你的文章很大一部分取自我的文章。因此，问题就归结于多少是不适当的？你已经承认，在你最初博文中就应当因为雷同程度而提及引用我。如果雷同程度如此高，你又凭什么否认剽窃与侵犯版权指控？将之变为公开讨论的确切原因正是因为多少雷同是不适当的需要推敲，而你自己的认可也显然有助于我对你的批评。）

You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?

（你还宣称我自制了剽窃与侵犯版权的标准。对此我坚称我指控你剽窃与侵犯版权的标准并非自己心血来潮。对这些问题每一个重要的杂志与每一个教育机构都有指南并且都大致相同。如果象你这样的中国学者希望参与世界科学文化，你必须学会遵守这些指南所立定的规则。我为你附上美国化学协会的标准。你应当注意到，不仅仅是你无权复制我的文章，甚至我自己都不能从我的发表文章中复制超出400字的内容，也不能再使用我自己的图表，除非取得杂志的允许。版权不仅保护作者的权益，也保护出版商的权益！这就涉及到我们的讨论中还没有论及的一个要点，这就是你不仅剽窃与（或）侵犯了我的文章的版权，也剽窃侵犯了牛津大学出版社的版权，该出版商出版了含有我的文章的书。你从他们那里获得了使用我的材料的许可没有？）

Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can't be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can't be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.

（你对这一问题的迄今为止的回应是你是打假专家，你鉴定你没有剽窃我，也没有侵犯我的版权。然而，你拒绝提供你的鉴定标准，这不仅是让我，也让中国人民茫然无知，你指责任何人造假采取什么标准。这还有更进一步的问题：即使你最终遮遮掩掩地说出你的标准来，你也不能成为你这一案的裁定者。实际上，在任何案例中，你都不能同时扮演指控者、法官、与陪审团的角色，然而，那正是你试图为已攫取的权力。）

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility, as do I!, to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don't want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I'm not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.

（现在我们就进入了问题的中心。我对你是否偷窃了我的部分作品的担心远不如我担心你把自己当成了监督中国造假行为的一个不受制约也不承担指控的角色。没有任何个人应当拥有你所攫取的权力。你（我也一样！）拥有绝对的权力，也实际上是绝对的义务，来揭露任何造假，但是你无权决定你的指控是否正确。你应当看到，如果你有此特权，我也应该有，那样的话，就可以因为我说你剽窃与侵权了，你就剽窃与侵权了。你显然不愿就此伏法，我也不愿如此行事。但是你必须籍着这样的矛盾理解到你不能拥有超越别人的特权。决定造假取决于没有偏见的、没有利益倾向的行为者，无论是在这一案例中，还是其它你指控别人的案例或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中国，或者在世界其它地方可以决定你可以不经过允许而使用多少我的作品，但我确信，那必不是你自己！我现在的对此事的最大期望是此案会导致中国针对造假（比如剽窃与侵犯版）的案例处理实践以及谁拥有此类事件的发言权带来巨大的变化）

附录二：寻正被正式授权翻译《卢伯恩斯顿教授再次确认其指控的真实性》

附录三：寻正被正式授权翻译《美国教授同时严词呛声方舟子铁杆粉丝》

Aimee Cluo几乎是方舟子的一个翻版，可以窜改美国宪法为方舟子辩论，使足吃奶的劲攻击Root-Bernstein的论点，但逻辑上巅三倒四，大家都没有兴趣理睬她，但仍然喋喋不休地“纠正”Root-Berntstein的“错误观点”。针对方舟子的赖皮，Root-Bernstein含怒出手，也随便嘲笑教训了这位“中立”的支持者。

在Root-Bernstein的回信中，Aimee Cluo的原信内容并没有Root-Bernstein所嘲笑的相关内容，相关内容在我以前的博文中有介绍，她要求大家视她为“中立”，对我称她为方舟子的支持者不满。我此前回复她很温柔，全是暗讽，Root-Bernstein干脆揭开来嘲笑她，嘲笑她的同时质问方舟子的二重标准，估计是对这个无理纠缠的话唠已经是由气生怒了。

Root-Bernstein原信：(蓝色为译文）

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Aimee Cluo,（亲爱的Aimee Cluo）

Actions, as always, speak louder than words. You claim to be just a student trying to learn, yet you accept nothing I say as valid and ignore the counter-examples that I give to your points. You claim to have no ties to anyone involved in this controversy, yet you always attack my points and never make any criticisms of Dr. Fang's position. You have never asked Dr. Fang to reveal his definitions of plagiarism or copyright infringement. You have never used his blog posts to evaluate whether he might be using a double standard in pretending that there is no problem with the material he has borrowed from me. You never examine my case against Dr. Fang and as HIM to respond to problematic issues. So please do not continue to insult my intelligence by pretending to be just an objective and naïve observer. You aren't.

（一如既往，观行重于察言。你声称自己是一个学生，试图从中学习，然而，你否定我说的一切话，忽视我针对你的论点的反证。你声称跟此事件中的任何人没有关系，但你总是攻击我的论点，从不批评方博士的立场。你从不要求方博士出示他针对剽窃与侵犯版权的定义。你从不使用方博士最初的博文来评估他是否采用了二重标准，装着他借用我的内容无可指责。你从未细究我对方博士的指控以及他针对此不当问题的回应。因此，请不要继续侮辱我的智慧，假装成一个客观中立不带偏见的观察者。你不是。）

That said, I will attempt once more to address some of your key points, invalid as I believe them to be, because other people may learn something useful from our dialogue, even if you don't.

（说清楚了这一点，我就再一次来讨论你的一些关键要点，我不认为它们有正确性可言，但即使你油盐不进，其他人还可以从中学到东西。）

No, I do not agree that plagiarism and copyright infringement are absolutely distinct. I already gave you multiple examples of instances where they are not. Until you can demonstrate to me that my examples are invalid (which is impossible, because they involve real cases), I will continue to maintain that plagiarism and copyright infringement can, and often are, overlapping concepts administratively, legally and ethically.

（不，我不认为剽窃跟侵犯版权截然可分。我已经给你很多它们不可分的具体例子了。在你没有证明我的例子有误之前（这是不可能的，因为我举的是实例），我坚称剽窃跟侵犯版权可能，也通常从应用、到法律、到道德范规是重叠的概念。）

Secondly, you, yourself, have played a not quite legitimate game in quoting US copyright law because you do not indicate which sentences are from the law and which are your commentaries upon them. Did you really think no one would notice? Do you really think this is an honest approach to debate and learning? I don't!

（其次，你自己在引用美国版权法时就不遵守规则，你不标注哪里是原文，哪些是你的评论。你真以为别人注意不到吗？你真以为这是学习与讨论中的诚实行为？我不那么认为。）

As to fair use, you fail to understand (or perhaps don't want to understand; or perhaps hope to confuse everyone about) several important points. Fair use does not grant a person such as Dr. Fang the right to use someone else's work just because he has a non-profit educational corporation. The passages you cite from US copyright law say that these factors will be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether fair use is applicable to mitigating copyright infringement. The law also says very explicitly that one person may not profit from the sale of another person's copyrighted works. Both parts of the law must be applied to any given case. Let me give you three examples (which you will probably refuse to understand once again – but I will try!).

（说到合理使用，你没有理解（或者不想理解，或者试图蒙蔽他人）数个要点。合理使用并不给象方舟子那样的，仅仅凭拥有一个非盈利教育组织的人以使用别人作品的权利。你所引用的美国版权法的条文实际上是说这些因素会在法庭考量版权侵权程度时，是否适用合理使用原则。法律明确要求使用者不能通过销售有版权的作品而获利。这两点要同时应用到任何案例中。让我给你举三个例子（可能你会再一次拒绝理解，但我会再试一次！）。）

Fair use permits me, at my expense, to make copies of a scientific article and distribute it to a class so that we can have an educational discussion about it. In this case, I do not profit from the distribution of the work and, in the case of academic articles, it is very unlikely that I impair the profit of the journal that published the article because the students could not afford a subscription to the journal anyway.

（合理使用允许我在成本归已的情况下复制一篇科学文章发给课堂里的学生，依此针对它进行教学性的讨论。在此条件下，我不会从分发该作品中受益，对学术文章而言，我不太可能因此影响到发表该文的杂志的收益，因为学生本来就不太可能订得起该杂志。）

Fair use does NOT permit me to make copies of a scientific textbook chapter and hand them out to the class so that we can have an educational discussion about it because in this case, I am directly interfering with the ability of textbook publisher to sell copies of the book to these students, who are the primary consumer of the textbook. Even though I personally do not profit, I have harmed the ability of the textbook publisher to profit and many legal cases have decided that this is clearly copyright infringement not covered by fair use.

（合理使用不允许我复制学科的教科书的章节并将之分发给学生，依此针对它进行教学讨论，因为在这种情况下，我就会直接影响到教科书的出版商将此书销售给作为其消费主体的学生。虽然我个人并不从中获利，我伤害了书商因之盈利的能力，有许多法庭判案表明，这是明显的侵犯版权，不属于合理使用。）

I also cannot as a professor at a non-profit educational institution, under fair use, make copies of a scientific article and SELL them to students so that we can have an educational discussion because in that case I PROFIT from the work of another individual without compensating them.

（作为非盈利教学机构的教授，我也不能依据合理使用原则而复制一篇科学论文，将之售于学生，依此进行教学讨论，因为那样，我就不劳而获，以别人的作品获得收入而没有给予别人以补偿。）

These distinctions concerning how fair use is actually realized IN RELATION TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF PROFIT in individual cases is relevant because Dr. Fang is PAID a salary by his non-profit corporation and SELLS his essays and books in order to obtain the money to be paid. Whether or not Dr. Fang's corporation makes money or not, he does. I know of no legal case involving copyright infringement where courts have ruled that it is permissible for an individual within a non-profit corporation to profit by the sale of someone else’s work. If you can find such a case, please bring it to my attention!

（这些关于合理使用原则的基于版权收益保护的在个案上的实际应用跟方博士高度相关，因为方博士从他的非盈利机构获得了收入，通过销售其文章与书籍而获利。无论方博士的非盈利机构是否获得了收益，他本人都获取了收益。我不知道有任何涉及版权的案例，法官判决允许非盈利机构中的个人靠销售别人的作品而获利。如果你能找到这样的判例，请让我知晓！）

So does Dr. Fang have the right to use my work under fair use clauses of US and international copyright law? In my opinion, no. He sells his work and is paid to do so. And given that Dr. Fang and one of his supporters have agreed that a substantial portion (as much as 50 to 60%) of his essay is derived from my article (see accompanying letter to Dr. Fang), I believe the problem of just how much of someone else's work one may borrow, with or without attribution, is still germane to our discussion.

（那么，依据美国与国际版权法的合理使用原则，方博士有没有权利那样使用我的作品？我的看法是，他没有。他销售其作品，因之获利。我们已知道，方博士与他的一个支持者都承认他的文章的很大一部分（可达到60%）源自我的文章（见同时发给方博士的信），我相信在注明与不注明来源的情况，一个人可以从他人的作品中借用多少内容，仍然跟我们讨论相关。）

Finally, let me address an issue you raised in an earlier letter that is also germane at this point. Why don't I just accuse Dr. Fang of copyright infringement and let the lawyers decide? Good question. The answer is simply that I am not interested in profiting by this controversy. My goal is educational, as I have said from the outset. I do believe that the ethical issue of what constitutes plagiarism and/or copyright infringement – and more broadly, high academic standards, whether of scholarship or popularization – is an international issue of great importance that deserves discussion by as many people as possible. Dr. Fang, if he really cares about preventing fraud, should be happy to participate in these discussions, helping to educate everyone about the standards that should be used in determining fraudulent activities. After all, the more people know about what fraud is, how to recognize it, and how to prevent it, the better off we all are. Isn’t this what Dr. Fang has been claiming all these years? So why is Dr. Fang refusing to participate in this debate? And why are you not taking him to task for his absence from it?

（最后，让我回答你先前发信提及的一个相关问题。为什么我不仅仅指控方博士侵犯版权，然后让律师决定结果。非常好的问题。简单的答案是我对从这一争议中获利不感兴趣。一如我开始就点明的那样，我的宗旨在教育。我的确相信什么行为构成了剽窃和/或侵犯版权的道德问题——以及更广泛而言，提高不论是学术还是普及作品的学理标准——是一个国际重要议题，需要并值得大家最广泛的讨论。方博士如果真心关心预防造假，应当很高兴参与这样的讨论，在决定造假行为的标准上帮助教育所有人。毕竟，更多的人懂得什么是造假，怎样认别，以及怎么预防，我们都会活得更好。这难道不是方博士多年来一直坚持的主张吗？那么为什么方博士拒绝参加这一对话呢？为什么你对他的缺席不置一词呢？）

Root-Bernstein信件附Aimee Cluo的私信：

Quoting Aimee Cluo <aimeecluo@gmail.com>:
> Dear Professor Root-Bernstein:
>
>

> When you wrote your last email to me with "copy anything I write and claim
> it as their own", in which you mentioned two essential elements, and I
> suppose that means you have finally agreed with me on the following:
>
>
> (1) There are two necessary conditions in the definition of "Plagiarize",
> i.e., (a) to use another person's idea or a part of their work, and (b) to
> pretend or claim as his own.
>
> (2) Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two fundamentally different
> concepts
>
>
> There are at least several conceptual mistakes you have made in your open
> letters that are now widely published in China by your authorized
> people. Chinese
> lawyer [ref1] and professors [ref2] are now commenting on the errors you
> made in your open letters and your emails that have been published by your
> allies.
>
>
> **
>
> Now what concerns me is that you also have misunderstanding about the nature
> and the difference between dramatic or artistic work and scientific
> publication in the context of copyright law.
>
> * *
>
> I wish to provide with you the following. You can find the references I am
> providing for you to check the accuracy.
>
>
>
> * I. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use** *
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections

> 106<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>and
> 106A, <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a> the fair use of a