蘋論：谷阿莫被告了
2017年04月26日
谷阿莫網路紅人谷阿莫被告違反《著作權法》，並不令人意外。網路上的創新與分享都是好事，谷阿莫卻以「他傻瓜，我聰明」的取巧方式衍生牟利，內容過度簡化、傳遞偏見更引發爭議，此次被告足堪其他相同手法網站與網紅引以為戒。
當初谷阿莫推出「X分鐘看完XX電影」系列影片時，幽默KUSO的說故事方式很對年輕人胃口，對於院線大片、知名影星的嘲諷也看似無傷大雅，不但一片叫好之聲，社群網站粉絲數更破千萬。儘管當時就有很多人對其涉及侵權不以為然，但與網路上到處可見的盜版販售相較，谷阿莫自稱「二次創作」在免費觀看的粉絲眼中仍屬可接受範圍。
無本生意豈稱創新
然而，隨著谷阿莫將「粉絲經濟」發揚光大，開始接案甚至訂出廣告、業配價碼，他所宣稱的「網路著作權合理使用」也愈來愈站不住腳，因為其中已經充滿了牟利動機及衍生獲利結果。「X分鐘看完XX電影」系列影片傳遞的價值觀，也變成「出大錢做內容的人都是傻瓜，巧妙重製內容做無本生意的人才聰明」，這種心態真的是值得鼓勵的網路創新精神嗎？
持平而論，谷阿莫是一個很會說故事的人，才能引發網路族群如此大的共鳴。但是，谷阿莫更大的爭議也在於此，因為他一路酸到底的用詞與風格，往往傳遞了更多歧視與偏見。不少人未必在乎谷阿莫侵犯著作權，卻對他的品味水準、鼓動歧視非常感冒。
去年谷阿莫以一貫嘲諷風格評論電影《丹麥女孩》，就引來許多網友抨擊，認為谷阿莫對性別無知及歧視弱勢者。儘管支持者為谷阿莫辯護認為只是開玩笑，但谷阿莫仍須面對「把玩笑建立在他人痛苦之上」的質疑聲浪。......
-----
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/21/525046934/city-planning-as-a-contact-sport-in-citizen-jane-battle-for-the-city
MOVIE REVIEWS
City Planning As A Contact Sport In 'Citizen Jane: Battle For The City'
NPR：
April 21, 20174:34 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
BOB MONDELLO
Jane Jacobs commandeering a city planning meeting.
Courtesy of IFC Films
She was the David to his Goliath. As New York's unelected but powerful parks commissioner, transit czar and head of public works, Moses was intent on creating the city of tomorrow — a place of glistening, angular high-rises, soaring bridges, and superhighways. And in the 1950s and '60s, he had the muscle to make them happen. As he talks of cutting out the "cancer" of slums, the images on-screen are of whole blocks being demolished by wrecking ball and explosives.
Moses, foolishly, termed her just a mother with a baby carriage. He would soon learn not to underestimate mothers.
But it's a feature of such top-down approaches to city planning that when you take a view from the clouds, the city's inhabitants become mere specks on your architectural models.
"Today our greatest single problem is tenant removal," Moses intones matter-of-factly. "You have to move people out of the way of a slum clearance project, and a lot of them are not gonna like it." Grant the man a gift for understatement.
While he designed crisp city blocks from on high, Jane Jacobs was looking at New York from street level. To her a city wasn't about buildings — it was about people. Planners like Moses may have seen newsstands and folks sitting on front stoops as clutter, but Jacobs saw a vibrant streetscape.
They were natural antagonists, these two. And with archival footage and talking heads, the filmmakers lay out the differences in their outlooks, and then revisit their biggest battles. Over, say, the Moses plan to declare much of Greenwich Village a slum, so he could run traffic — think of his neighborhood-killing Cross Bronx Expressway — through the center of Washington Square.
Jacobs had just published her book Death and Life at that point, and she lived in Greenwich Village. Moses, foolishly, termed her just a mother with a baby carriage. He would soon learn not to underestimate mothers.
"There is nothing more inert than a planning office," Jacobs says in a voiceover. "It gets going in one direction and it is never going to change of its own accord." So she made it her business to "frustrate planners."
The film documents how she mobilized the neighborhood, and then the politicians, and proved that the people of Greenwich Village could fight city hall.
But the Moses doctrine of bulldoze-and-replace was making a lot of money for developers, and it was spreading. Cities everywhere followed his lead, ripping out run-down neighborhoods to construct soulless, low-income high-rises that no one wanted.
The film shows the result — Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Cabrini-Green in Chicago — huge, sterile towers surrounded by ribbons of concrete and what sketches depicted as parkland but what were, in reality, the equivalent of empty lots. Jacobs predicted correctly that these walled-in green spaces would prove more dangerous than the busy streets they replaced because no one would ever be in them.
"This is not the re-building of cities" she wrote. "This is the sacking of cities."
It would be hard to watch Citizen Jane: Battle for the City without making connections to battles raging today: politicians who want to build things — walls, infrastructure — to clean up clutter and make people conform.
Jacobs argued that what looks to officialdom like disorder is actually what makes a crowded human landscape function — it's just a more complex order. This compelling documentary lets you see the beauty she found in that complexity.
2017年04月26日
谷阿莫網路紅人谷阿莫被告違反《著作權法》，並不令人意外。網路上的創新與分享都是好事，谷阿莫卻以「他傻瓜，我聰明」的取巧方式衍生牟利，內容過度簡化、傳遞偏見更引發爭議，此次被告足堪其他相同手法網站與網紅引以為戒。
當初谷阿莫推出「X分鐘看完XX電影」系列影片時，幽默KUSO的說故事方式很對年輕人胃口，對於院線大片、知名影星的嘲諷也看似無傷大雅，不但一片叫好之聲，社群網站粉絲數更破千萬。儘管當時就有很多人對其涉及侵權不以為然，但與網路上到處可見的盜版販售相較，谷阿莫自稱「二次創作」在免費觀看的粉絲眼中仍屬可接受範圍。
無本生意豈稱創新
然而，隨著谷阿莫將「粉絲經濟」發揚光大，開始接案甚至訂出廣告、業配價碼，他所宣稱的「網路著作權合理使用」也愈來愈站不住腳，因為其中已經充滿了牟利動機及衍生獲利結果。「X分鐘看完XX電影」系列影片傳遞的價值觀，也變成「出大錢做內容的人都是傻瓜，巧妙重製內容做無本生意的人才聰明」，這種心態真的是值得鼓勵的網路創新精神嗎？
持平而論，谷阿莫是一個很會說故事的人，才能引發網路族群如此大的共鳴。但是，谷阿莫更大的爭議也在於此，因為他一路酸到底的用詞與風格，往往傳遞了更多歧視與偏見。不少人未必在乎谷阿莫侵犯著作權，卻對他的品味水準、鼓動歧視非常感冒。
去年谷阿莫以一貫嘲諷風格評論電影《丹麥女孩》，就引來許多網友抨擊，認為谷阿莫對性別無知及歧視弱勢者。儘管支持者為谷阿莫辯護認為只是開玩笑，但谷阿莫仍須面對「把玩笑建立在他人痛苦之上」的質疑聲浪。......
-----
梁永安先生談城市經濟學(The Economy of Cities By Jane Jacobs) 2017-01-21
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/21/525046934/city-planning-as-a-contact-sport-in-citizen-jane-battle-for-the-city
MOVIE REVIEWS
City Planning As A Contact Sport In 'Citizen Jane: Battle For The City'
NPR：
April 21, 20174:34 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
BOB MONDELLO
Jane Jacobs commandeering a city planning meeting.
Courtesy of IFC Films
想像一下，如果把城市規劃比喻為一場對抗性運動，你就能大致理解馬特‧泰爾瑙爾的紀錄片《公民簡：城市之戰》的精髓。這部影片記錄了20世紀中期兩種截然不同的城市規劃理念之間的鬥爭：一種是羅伯特·摩西的理念，他鼓吹用「推土機推倒重建」來根治美國城市的弊病；另一種則是作家兼活動家簡·雅各布斯的理念，她在其具有里程碑意義的著作《美國大城市的死與生》中，對城市更新的整個概念提出了挑戰。
她就像大衛對抗歌利亞。身為紐約市未經選舉卻權力滔天的公園專員、交通沙皇和公共工程主管，摩西一心想要打造一座未來之城——一個由閃閃發光的棱角分明的高樓、高聳入雲的橋樑和高速公路組成的城市。在1950年代和1960年代，他擁有足夠的實力來實現這些願景。當他談到要剷除貧民窟這個「毒瘤」時，螢幕上的畫面卻是整片街區被拆遷球和炸藥夷為平地。
摩西愚蠢地稱她只是個推著嬰兒車的母親。他很快就會明白，千萬不要低估母親的力量。
但這種自上而下的城市規劃方式的弊端在於，當你從高處俯瞰時，城市居民在你眼中就如同建築模型上的微不足道的小點。
「如今我們最大的問題是驅逐租戶，」摩西一本正經地說道，「你必須讓人們為貧民窟改造計畫讓路，而他們中的許多人肯定不會樂意。」不得不承認，他說話輕描淡寫得真妙。
當摩西從高處俯瞰，設計出條理清晰的城市街區時，簡·雅各布斯卻從街頭巷尾觀察著紐約。對她而言，城市並非由建築構成，而是由人構成。像摩西這樣的規劃師或許會把報攤和坐在門廊上的人們視為雜亂的景象，但雅各布斯卻看到了充滿活力的街景。
這兩個人天生就是對立面。影片透過檔案影像和訪談，展現了他們觀點上的差異，並回顧了他們之間最激烈的爭論。例如，摩西曾計劃將格林威治村的大部分地區劃為貧民窟，以便修建一條交通要道——想想他那條扼殺社區的「跨布朗克斯高速公路」——穿過華盛頓廣場的中心地帶。
當時，雅各布斯剛出版了她的著作《生死之間》，她住在格林威治村。摩西愚蠢地稱她只是個推著嬰兒車的母親。他很快就會明白，千萬不要低估母親的力量。
「沒有什麼比規劃辦公室更僵化的了，」雅各布斯在旁白中說道，「它一旦開始朝著一個方向發展，就永遠不會主動改變。」因此，她立志要「挫敗規劃師們的陰謀」。
這部影片記錄了她如何動員社區居民，進而動員政界人士，並證明格林威治村的居民能夠與市政廳抗衡。
然而，摩西推倒重建的教條卻讓開發商賺得盆滿缽滿，而且這種做法還在蔓延。各地城市紛紛效仿，拆除破敗的街區，建造毫無生氣、低收入、無人問津的高層建築。
影片展現了最終的結果——聖路易斯的普魯伊特-伊戈項目、芝加哥的卡布里尼-格林項目——巨大的、毫無生氣的摩天大樓，周圍環繞著混凝土帶，以及草圖上描繪的“公園綠地”，但實際上卻如同空地一般。雅各布斯預言得沒錯，這些被圍牆環繞的「綠地」比它們取代的繁忙街道更危險，因為根本無人問津。
“這不是城市的重建，”她寫道，“這是城市的掠奪。”
觀看《公民簡：城市之戰》很難不聯想到當今社會正在發生的種種鬥爭：政客們為了清除雜物、迫使人們服從，不惜修建圍牆、建設基礎設施。
雅各布斯認為，在官方看來看似混亂的景象，實際上卻是人口稠密的人類社會得以運作的根本──它只不過是一種更為複雜的秩序。這部引人入勝的紀錄片將帶你領略她從這種複雜性中發現的美麗。
Imagine city planning as a contact sport and you have the gist of Matt Tyrnauer's documentary, Citizen Jane: Battle for the City. The film chronicles the struggle between two mid-20th century worldviews: that of Robert Moses, who preached a cure for what ailed American cities that amounted to "bulldoze and replace," and the less destructive prescriptions of writer/activist Jane Jacobs, who challenged the whole notion of urban renewal in her game-changing book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.She was the David to his Goliath. As New York's unelected but powerful parks commissioner, transit czar and head of public works, Moses was intent on creating the city of tomorrow — a place of glistening, angular high-rises, soaring bridges, and superhighways. And in the 1950s and '60s, he had the muscle to make them happen. As he talks of cutting out the "cancer" of slums, the images on-screen are of whole blocks being demolished by wrecking ball and explosives.
Moses, foolishly, termed her just a mother with a baby carriage. He would soon learn not to underestimate mothers.
But it's a feature of such top-down approaches to city planning that when you take a view from the clouds, the city's inhabitants become mere specks on your architectural models.
"Today our greatest single problem is tenant removal," Moses intones matter-of-factly. "You have to move people out of the way of a slum clearance project, and a lot of them are not gonna like it." Grant the man a gift for understatement.
While he designed crisp city blocks from on high, Jane Jacobs was looking at New York from street level. To her a city wasn't about buildings — it was about people. Planners like Moses may have seen newsstands and folks sitting on front stoops as clutter, but Jacobs saw a vibrant streetscape.
They were natural antagonists, these two. And with archival footage and talking heads, the filmmakers lay out the differences in their outlooks, and then revisit their biggest battles. Over, say, the Moses plan to declare much of Greenwich Village a slum, so he could run traffic — think of his neighborhood-killing Cross Bronx Expressway — through the center of Washington Square.
Jacobs had just published her book Death and Life at that point, and she lived in Greenwich Village. Moses, foolishly, termed her just a mother with a baby carriage. He would soon learn not to underestimate mothers.
"There is nothing more inert than a planning office," Jacobs says in a voiceover. "It gets going in one direction and it is never going to change of its own accord." So she made it her business to "frustrate planners."
The film documents how she mobilized the neighborhood, and then the politicians, and proved that the people of Greenwich Village could fight city hall.
But the Moses doctrine of bulldoze-and-replace was making a lot of money for developers, and it was spreading. Cities everywhere followed his lead, ripping out run-down neighborhoods to construct soulless, low-income high-rises that no one wanted.
The film shows the result — Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Cabrini-Green in Chicago — huge, sterile towers surrounded by ribbons of concrete and what sketches depicted as parkland but what were, in reality, the equivalent of empty lots. Jacobs predicted correctly that these walled-in green spaces would prove more dangerous than the busy streets they replaced because no one would ever be in them.
"This is not the re-building of cities" she wrote. "This is the sacking of cities."
It would be hard to watch Citizen Jane: Battle for the City without making connections to battles raging today: politicians who want to build things — walls, infrastructure — to clean up clutter and make people conform.
Jacobs argued that what looks to officialdom like disorder is actually what makes a crowded human landscape function — it's just a more complex order. This compelling documentary lets you see the beauty she found in that complexity.
沒有留言:
張貼留言