不愿做轉基因毒糧小白鼠者快去投票支持民族英雄呂永巖?。看蔚顷懚伎赏镀保?

http://www.blogchina.com/201107231170836.html

.

“根伯”教授向方舟子發射多彈頭導彈

編劇趙華

.

方舟子母校伯恩斯坦教授怒斥方是民“博士”

.

科普剽家方舟子母校的“根伯”伯恩斯坦教授，被受到抄襲剽竊指控后百般狡賴的方舟子（方是民）之強詞奪理和拒不認錯無恥態度激怒，怒而向方舟子及其黑惡團伙發射多彈頭導彈，如美籍華裔超一流生命科學家劉實所言，一頭炸方舟子，一頭炸方粉，威力極其巨大！

.

方舟子及其同伙的所有科普作品“允許剽竊”歪理，均被伯恩斯坦教授駁得體無完膚。尤其具有震撼力的是，伯恩斯坦教授從方舟子（方是民）的拙劣狡辯中發現，中國允許方舟子這樣毫無道德底線者“法外”黑惡“打假”，簡直匪夷所思。

.

的確，10多年來，肖傳國教授、學者劉實、亦明（葛莘）、尋正（廖俊林）等，早已揭穿了方舟子（方是民）博士論文造假起家、無文不抄，無書不剽的事實，方舟子非但“不倒”，反而步步“高升”，成了中外主媒力挺的所謂“打假斗士”，甚至導致肖傳國教授蒙冤入獄，委實讓人大跌眼鏡，實乃天大的怪事和笑話。

.

但從去年筆者跟蹤方舟子所有言行以來，方舟子的種種“蛛絲馬跡”，已經顯現為定有幕后原委的一系列“行為邏輯”鏈條。概括地說，方舟子（方是民）以渾身是假之身，能夠在中國興風作浪，在于他參與了美國“毀華三大戰役”，成為了美國對華“軟熱戰”的急先鋒。無論方舟子（方是民）是何國籍，他的所有言行都是“逢華必反”，“談美必贊”，完全是單方面維護美國利益。

.

方舟子參與的美國“毀華三大戰役”為：

一，以“學術打假”和打擊“偽科學”之名，打擊和削弱中國的科技創新。方舟子對肖傳國教授這個真科學家和諾貝爾之星以及另兩位中國諾貝爾之星張穎清教授、徐榮祥教授的瘋狂迫害、攻擊和誹謗，即是明證。

二，以打擊“偽科學”之名，瘋狂攻擊中醫中藥，為歐美西藥巨頭全面占領中國市場鳴鑼開道。

三，以美國在華“轉基糧”首席代言人和黑打手身份，拼命掩蓋“轉基糧”劇毒真相，瘋狂攻擊、誹謗所有敢于質疑“轉基糧”安全謊言的蔣高明、薛達元、顧林、曹明秀華等中外學者，不遺余力推進中國轉基糧商業化種植和銷售，以利美國農業壟斷資本操控中國農業命脈，以轉基糧“慢性毒食”摧毀中國人的健康。

.

假如只有美國后臺而無中國保護傘，方舟子仍然無法興風作浪。于是，人們漸漸看出方舟子身后靠90％以上大規模抄襲碩士論文混入新華社還無恥聲稱“問心無愧”的方是民之妻劉菊花，北大生科院院長饒毅，著名學棍兼學霸何祚庥，著名學霸鄒承魯，真理部大佬于光遠這一條粗粗的宣傳口“黑線”。再往上追，“你懂的”。

.

附錄一：尋正被正式授權翻譯《美國教授再次公開嚴斥方舟子》

.

方舟子拒絕因為剽竊美國教授作品而道歉，相反，處處以語言障礙為契機，誤導國內觀眾，在2011年8月12日方舟子向Root-Bernstein教授偷偷摸摸發信，一是拒認90%抄襲，二是要求退出Root-Bernstein教授發起的批方論壇。Root-Bernstein教授可能氣壞了，要冷靜之后再回復他，或者因為忙于事務，來不及回復他，導致方舟子以為Root-Bernstein就此要放他一馬，于是乎得意洋洋地在自己的微博中把相關信件發了出來，顯示自己好象給予了適當交待。

面對方舟子的無恥與賴皮，Root-Bernstein再次地不留情面，給予了“中國的打假第一人”以重責。以下是Root-Bernstein教授公開信全文（藍色為譯文）：

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Dr. Fang,（親愛的方博士）

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?

（真是一個大笑話！如果我堅持把你的來信及回信公開，你就威脅要退出討論？首先，如果不公之于眾，我寫的那些公開信還能叫公開信嗎？其次，你本來就幾乎從不參加討論，你的威脅有意義嗎？第三，我以為你的事業就是幫助中國發現與揭露不論何時何地的造假，那么你為什么拒絕參加一個針對什么是剽竊與侵犯版權的公開討論？最后，最重要的是，你背著我一直在你的網站與中國媒體上攻擊我，你怎么有臉要求我不公開你的信件？因此，無庸置疑，此信發給每個人，你要干什么，隨你。你除了自定規則，是不遵守別人的規則的。）

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.

(你質問我從何處得到你剽竊我的文章達到90%的結論，抗議說絕不會超過50%。好吧，我簡捷明快地回答你：顯然，我從未見識到你的全部文章，包括你遞送的文本！你應該記得寄給我你文章的譯文，它并非全文。因此，如果我誤解了你竊取了多少我的文章，你跟其他人一樣難辭其疚。)

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.

（不管怎么說，起碼我們討論的是你的文章竊取了多少我的內容。對此，你的自稱支持者之一（見所附電郵）還將之定量在60%。不管我們怎么看這個問題，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，問題就歸結于多少是不適當的？你已經承認，在你最初博文中就應當因為雷同程度而提及引用我。如果雷同程度如此高，你又憑什么否認剽竊與侵犯版權指控？將之變為公開討論的確切原因正是因為多少雷同是不適當的需要推敲，而你自己的認可也顯然有助于我對你的批評。）

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?

（你還宣稱我自制了剽竊與侵犯版權的標準。對此我堅稱我指控你剽竊與侵犯版權的標準并非自己心血來潮。對這些問題每一個重要的雜志與每一個教育機構都有指南并且都大致相同。如果象你這樣的中國學者希望參與世界科學文化，你必須學會遵守這些指南所立定的規則。我為你附上美國化學協會的標準。你應當注意到，不僅僅是你無權復制我的文章，甚至我自己都不能從我的發表文章中復制超出400字的內容，也不能再使用我自己的圖表，除非取得雜志的允許。版權不僅保護作者的權益，也保護出版商的權益！這就涉及到我們的討論中還沒有論及的一個要點，這就是你不僅剽竊與（或）侵犯了我的文章的版權，也剽竊侵犯了牛津大學出版社的版權，該出版商出版了含有我的文章的書。你從他們那里獲得了使用我的材料的許可沒有？）

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.

（你對這一問題的迄今為止的回應是你是打假專家，你鑒定你沒有剽竊我，也沒有侵犯我的版權。然而，你拒絕提供你的鑒定標準，這不僅是讓我，也讓中國人民茫然無知，你指責任何人造假采取什么標準。這還有更進一步的問題：即使你最終遮遮掩掩地說出你的標準來，你也不能成為你這一案的裁定者。實際上，在任何案例中，你都不能同時扮演指控者、法官、與陪審團的角色，然而，那正是你試圖為已攫取的權力。）

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.

（現在我們就進入了問題的中心。我對你是否偷竊了我的部分作品的擔心遠不如我擔心你把自己當成了監督中國造假行為的一個不受制約也不承擔指控的角色。沒有任何個人應當擁有你所攫取的權力。你（我也一樣?。碛薪^對的權力，也實際上是絕對的義務，來揭露任何造假，但是你無權決定你的指控是否正確。你應當看到，如果你有此特權，我也應該有，那樣的話，就可以因為我說你剽竊與侵權了，你就剽竊與侵權了。你顯然不愿就此伏法，我也不愿如此行事。但是你必須籍著這樣的矛盾理解到你不能擁有超越別人的特權。決定造假取決于沒有偏見的、沒有利益傾向的行為者，無論是在這一案例中，還是其它你指控別人的案例或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中國，或者在世界其它地方可以決定你可以不經過允許而使用多少我的作品，但我確信，那必不是你自己！我現在的對此事的最大期望是此案會導致中國針對造假（比如剽竊與侵犯版）的案例處理實踐以及誰擁有此類事件的發言權帶來巨大的變化）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478108

.

附錄二：尋正被正式授權翻譯《盧伯恩斯頓教授再次確認其指控的真實性》

.

不少曾經受蒙蔽的觀眾迄今仍然懷疑方舟子受其母校教授指責剽竊與侵犯版權的真實性，方舟子的水軍也致力于攪混水，試圖繼續蒙蔽世人，樹造打假斗士不會剽竊的光輝形象，盡管這一形象破產得不能再破了。針對方舟子及其支持者不時發出的謠言，盧伯恩斯頓教授再次（2011年8月21日）向一位詢問者確認其指控及一系公開信的真實性。盧伯恩斯頓教授明確公開授權所有感興趣的人翻譯并傳播其過去及將來的公開信，認為越多人知情越好。歡迎向盧伯恩斯頓教授求證：[email protected]

方舟子，這一次好象不好賴啊。

      1) The letter is real. I have appended it to this email. You will be receiving another response to Dr. Fang shortly that expands on my concerns.

      2) I have accused Dr. Fang of plagiarism and copyright infringement in several public letters that Dr. Fang has received copies of. If he says otherwise, he is lying.

      3) If Mr. Fang were merely citing the source of an idea, then he would be correct in asserting that he does not need my permission, nor the publisher of my book chapter (Oxford University Press). But Dr. Fang did not just cite my ideas: he copied, almost verbatim, half-a-dozen paragraphs from my chapter in writing his article, and the material from my chapter constitutes at least half of his article.  Using this much of someone else's material without their explicit permission is not allowed by any publisher of which I am aware, nor any educational institution, and this is true whether Dr. Fang actually translated my words directly, or merely reworded such a substantial amount of my argument and its examples. Moreover, Mr. Fang cannot use the excuse of relying on "Fair Use", since he personally is paid by his non-profit organization to write his blog and books, and therefore profits from his unfair borrowing of other people's material.

      4) Yes, you may translate and post my original letter, as well as the additional letters  you will be receiving shortly. Indeed, I grant this right to translate my letters into Chinese to anyone who wishes to do so, with the sole proviso that the translation be complete and accurate.  The more people who have access to the entire controversy and the more translation versions there are to compare, the better the issues can be decided.

      Many thanks for your interest in this problem.

      Sincerely,（誠摯地）

      Bob Root-Bernstein（鮑勃*盧伯恩斯頓）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478241

.

附錄三：尋正被正式授權翻譯《美國教授同時嚴詞嗆聲方舟子鐵桿粉絲》

.

Aimee Cluo幾乎是方舟子的一個翻版，可以竄改美國憲法為方舟子辯論，使足吃奶的勁攻擊Root-Bernstein的論點，但邏輯上巔三倒四，大家都沒有興趣理睬她，但仍然喋喋不休地“糾正”Root-Berntstein的“錯誤觀點”。針對方舟子的賴皮，Root-Bernstein含怒出手，也隨便嘲笑教訓了這位“中立”的支持者。

在Root-Bernstein的回信中，Aimee Cluo的原信內容并沒有Root-Bernstein所嘲笑的相關內容，相關內容在我以前的博文中有介紹，她要求大家視她為“中立”，對我稱她為方舟子的支持者不滿。我此前回復她很溫柔，全是暗諷，Root-Bernstein干脆揭開來嘲笑她，嘲笑她的同時質問方舟子的二重標準，估計是對這個無理糾纏的話嘮已經是由氣生怒了。

Root-Bernstein原信：(藍色為譯文）

21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）

Dear Aimee Cluo,（親愛的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，觀行重于察言。你聲稱自己是一個學生，試圖從中學習，然而，你否定我說的一切話，忽視我針對你的論點的反證。你聲稱跟此事件中的任何人沒有關系，但你總是攻擊我的論點，從不批評方博士的立場。你從不要求方博士出示他針對剽竊與侵犯版權的定義。你從不使用方博士最初的博文來評估他是否采用了二重標準，裝著他借用我的內容無可指責。你從未細究我對方博士的指控以及他針對此不當問題的回應。因此，請不要繼續侮辱我的智慧，假裝成一個客觀中立不帶偏見的觀察者。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.

（說清楚了這一點，我就再一次來討論你的一些關鍵要點，我不認為它們有正確性可言，但即使你油鹽不進，其他人還可以從中學到東西。）

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，我不認為剽竊跟侵犯版權截然可分。我已經給你很多它們不可分的具體例子了。在你沒有證明我的例子有誤之前（這是不可能的，因為我舉的是實例），我堅稱剽竊跟侵犯版權可能，也通常從應用、到法律、到道德范規是重疊的概念。）

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，你自己在引用美國版權法時就不遵守規則，你不標注哪里是原文，哪些是你的評論。你真以為別人注意不到嗎？你真以為這是學習與討論中的誠實行為？我不那么認為。）

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!).

（說到合理使用，你沒有理解（或者不想理解，或者試圖蒙蔽他人）數個要點。合理使用并不給象方舟子那樣的，僅僅憑擁有一個非盈利教育組織的人以使用別人作品的權利。你所引用的美國版權法的條文實際上是說這些因素會在法庭考量版權侵權程度時，是否適用合理使用原則。法律明確要求使用者不能通過銷售有版權的作品而獲利。這兩點要同時應用到任何案例中。讓我給你舉三個例子（可能你會再一次拒絕理解，但我會再試一次?。?。）

（合理使用允許我在成本歸已的情況下復制一篇科學文章發給課堂里的學生，依此針對它進行教學性的討論。在此條件下，我不會從分發該作品中受益，對學術文章而言，我不太可能因此影響到發表該文的雜志的收益，因為學生本來就不太可能訂得起該雜志。）

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.

（合理使用不允許我復制學科的教科書的章節并將之分發給學生，依此針對它進行教學討論，因為在這種情況下，我就會直接影響到教科書的出版商將此書銷售給作為其消費主體的學生。雖然我個人并不從中獲利，我傷害了書商因之盈利的能力，有許多法庭判案表明，這是明顯的侵犯版權，不屬于合理使用。）

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.

（作為非盈利教學機構的教授，我也不能依據合理使用原則而復制一篇科學論文，將之售于學生，依此進行教學討論，因為那樣，我就不勞而獲，以別人的作品獲得收入而沒有給予別人以補償。）

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!

（這些關于合理使用原則的基于版權收益保護的在個案上的實際應用跟方博士高度相關，因為方博士從他的非盈利機構獲得了收入，通過銷售其文章與書籍而獲利。無論方博士的非盈利機構是否獲得了收益，他本人都獲取了收益。我不知道有任何涉及版權的案例，法官判決允許非盈利機構中的個人靠銷售別人的作品而獲利。如果你能找到這樣的判例，請讓我知曉?。?/p>

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，依據美國與國際版權法的合理使用原則，方博士有沒有權利那樣使用我的作品？我的看法是，他沒有。他銷售其作品，因之獲利。我們已知道，方博士與他的一個支持者都承認他的文章的很大一部分（可達到60%）源自我的文章（見同時發給方博士的信），我相信在注明與不注明來源的情況，一個人可以從他人的作品中借用多少內容，仍然跟我們討論相關。）

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，讓我回答你先前發信提及的一個相關問題。為什么我不僅僅指控方博士侵犯版權，然后讓律師決定結果。非常好的問題。簡單的答案是我對從這一爭議中獲利不感興趣。一如我開始就點明的那樣，我的宗旨在教育。我的確相信什么行為構成了剽竊和/或侵犯版權的道德問題——以及更廣泛而言，提高不論是學術還是普及作品的學理標準——是一個國際重要議題，需要并值得大家最廣泛的討論。方博士如果真心關心預防造假，應當很高興參與這樣的討論，在決定造假行為的標準上幫助教育所有人。畢竟，更多的人懂得什么是造假，怎樣認別，以及怎么預防，我們都會活得更好。這難道不是方博士多年來一直堅持的主張嗎？那么為什么方博士拒絕參加這一對話呢？為什么你對他的缺席不置一詞呢？）

Root-Bernstein信件附Aimee Cluo的私信：

Quoting Aimee Cluo <[email protected]>:
> 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

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=460310&do=blog&id=478221

俄長期毒理試驗證實轉基因大豆使倉鼠三代絕種

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_3d4c4b440100l6n7.html

編劇趙華解讀溫家寶總理關于轉基因問題的講話

http://www.blogchina.com/201107171167554.html

呂永巖《國恥：從“九一八”到“七一四”！》

http://www.blogchina.com/201107161167149.html

方舟子妻劉菊花論文抄襲丑聞專輯（持續更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144278.html
方舟子造假、抄襲、剽竊鐵案專輯（持續更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144298.html
美國導演方舟子團伙毀華三大戰役（持續更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144301.html
抵制轉基因、揭露禍國賊博文專輯（持續更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201010191026403.html
左派公眾提請公訴茅于軾辛子陵誹謗毛澤東專輯

http://www.blogchina.com/201105281144272.html

美國《紐約客》雜志要把韓寒打造成明星韓德拉

http://www.blogchina.com/201107201168974.html
被新浪博客刪除博客中國收留博文（持續更新）

http://www.blogchina.com/201011021035431.html
編劇趙華：博文網刊《絕頂閱世》第一至九期

http://www.blogchina.com/201103271111388.html

.

【拒吃大豆油，抵制轉基因，不當小白鼠】
【反轉基因大本營：http://www.wyzxsx.com/】
【轉基因專題網站：http://www.zhuanjy.com/】
【簡明資料：什么是轉基因食品？】轉基因，就是把A生物比如昆蟲、動物、細菌的一部分基因，轉移到B生物比如蔬菜、水果、糧食中去，改變B生物的自然特性，達到人的要求。例如，科學家將北極魚體內某個有防凍作用的基因抽出來植入西紅柿里，制造出耐寒西紅柿，就是一種“轉基因食品”。例如，把細菌中的有毒基因植入水稻中，水稻就能產生抗蟲毒素，殺死水稻害蟲。對人有劇毒的轉基因食品三大危害：一代致病，二代致殘，三代絕種。http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_67928ef80100jk9g.html

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號