触乐问20人：怎样算抄袭？

【问20人】是触乐的一个不定时栏目，我们每期会就游戏人普遍关心的话题，邀请行业甚至圈外的嘉宾一起聊聊自己的看法。每次我们只抛出一个问题，然后去问很多人——不一定是20人，可能比20人多，也可能比20人少。上期问20人——什么是独立游戏？ 在本期问20人中，我们将话题定在了“抄袭”这个关键词上。在游戏行业里，“抄袭”更多时候依赖经验判断与道德判断，而非法律，法律不保护游戏玩法。“抄袭”是对一款游戏最严重的指控，所以认定一款游戏是否抄袭，不可轻易定论。在一个理想的世界里，抄袭的边界应当是泾渭分明的，但实现并非如此，很多时候我们面对一款游戏摇摆不定，小到无名厂商，大到暴雪，有关“抄袭”的声音和讨论始终不绝于耳，而大多数时候正反双方都振振有词，难以定论。 那么如何定义借鉴与抄袭的边界？这个问题几乎不可能得到答案，但并不意味着没有讨论价值。事实上在这段时间以来，随着各种各样的案例出现和更多的思考，我对于“抄袭”的看法也始终在发生变化。 关于抄袭话题的讨论大多数尖锐而严肃，我们试图将本期问20人的话题设定的相对轻松一些，我们采访了一些游戏开发者、创作者以及游戏玩家，设定了一个开脑洞和上帝视角的问题——不追求可行性，不考虑现实因素的情况下，假如你是一名法官，可以制定三个标准，用于判断“是否算抄袭”，你会如何选择？

麻辣马创始人 American McGee（代表作《爱丽丝疯狂回归》）

这是一个棘手的话题， 经过这么多年，我对抄袭这件事的看法已经变了。目前，我认为有限的知识产权保护了艺术家、创作者和发明家，使他们有能力去创作（基于他们做出了这些工作的奖励）。但保护应该是有限的，以鼓励更多在最初构想上的创意。 维基百科上关于知识产权法律的历史： 近来， 知识产权法的目的是给尽可能小的保护，以鼓励创新。从历史观点来看，他们只在有限的时间和范围内得到保护，因为发明需要激励。 作为一名创作者，如果我没有防备就会被人复制我的创意而获得报酬，这让我很难寄希望于那些新的创意。同时，“太阳底下无鲜事”当我们创造我们可能就在借用。因此，必须在激励创造者之间有一个平衡。 我认为知识产权法如今已经变得过于严厉，他们应该给予创作更多自由。在双方的争论中应该有可靠的论点达到和维持着微妙的平衡。 当谈到游戏，“致敬”与“剽窃”有很大的不同，这取决于产品的表现形式。基本上来说，你知道你看到的是什么。如果你要做一个致敬的作品，为什么不去问问最初的创造者本人？如果你选择不去问，你就要承担被称为剽窃者的风险。 以钱为标准考虑致敬与剽窃的话——如果一个新产品“借”一些老产品中的一些概念、美术、故事和并表现为“艺术”，没有赚钱的目标，它就可以视为一种安全的致敬。但另一方面，如果它赚了一大笔钱，它不仅会看起来像剽窃，还会变成一个吸引一大批从事反剽窃工作的律师。换句话说，那些以致敬为目的制作艺术的而不是为了钱的作品，也很难被当成诉讼目标。律师不追逐穷人。 对于我而言，我承认在创作一个想法并将其向公众展示它的时候我失去了大多数控制权和创意的归属权。如果我想100%保护一个创意，最好的方式就是完全不公开它。这就失去了游戏本身的乐趣。 涉及（抄袭）这些事情的判断，每当发生我就会寻求已有的法律。当法律不明确，你就把它们留给法官和陪审团，这个系统已经可以做出非常好的判断了。 点击展开原文

It's a tricky subject and my view on it has changed over the years. These days I believe there should be limited IP protection for artists, creators, and inventors, so that they have an incentive to create (based on the rewards that come from their work) - but that the protection should be limited in time, so as to encourage further innovation by others who build on the original idea. Wikipedia says of the history of IP law: Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope. As a creator, it would be very difficult to invest in new ideas if I had no protection against others copying those ideas and stealing my rewards. At the same time, "there's no new thing under the sun," and when we create, we borrow. So, there must be a balance between incentives for creators. I believe IP laws these days have become too draconian and that more freedom should be allowed. It's a fine balance to achieve and maintain - and there are solid arguments on both sides of the debate. When it comes to games, I believe the difference between an "homage" and "plagiarism" varies greatly depending on the product and its presentation. Basically, you know it when you see it. And if you're going to do something that looks like an homage, why not ask the original creator if it's OK? If you choose not to ask, then you take on the risk of being called a plagiarist. Another way to consider an homage vs. plagiarism... follow the money. If a new product "borrows" from an old product some concept/art/story, and is presented as "art," with no goal to make money, then it can safely be considered an homage. On the other hand, if it makes a ton of money, not only will it look like plagiarism, but it will become a worthy target for lawyers who make it their business to pursue plagiarists. In other words, those who make an homage, make art, and aren't doing it for the money, therefore it's difficult to target them with a lawsuit. Lawyers don't chase paupers ;) For me, I accept that in creating an idea and releasing it to the public I lose most control and ownership of the idea. If I wanted to protect an idea 100%, then it's best if I never release it! There's no fun it that. Because there are already laws that cover this sort of thing, I would just point to those laws. When the laws don't make it clear, then you just leave it up to a judge and jury. This system already exists and does a pretty good job.

游戏专栏《旗舰评论》作者Necromanov