評論
打印
At this point Jobs could have decided simply to indulge piracy.
本來，喬布斯完全可以放任盜版的存在。
Free music meant more valuable iPods.
免費音樂意味著能賣掉更多的iPod。
Yet because he really liked music, and the artists who made it,
但是，因為他真的熱愛音樂，也熱愛創作音樂的藝術家，
he was opposed to what he saw as the theft of creative products.
所以他反對這種偷竊創意產品的行為。
As he later told me: From the earliest days at Apple, I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property.
他后來告訴我：從蘋果公司創立之初，我就意識到，我們的成功是來自知識產權。
If people copied or stole our software, we'd be out of business.
如果人們可以任意復制或偷取我們的軟件，我們早就破產了。
If it weren't protected, there'd be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs.
如果知識產權不受到保護，我們也沒有動力再去制作新軟件或設計新產品了。
If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear, creative companies will disappear or never get started.
如果沒有了對知識產權的保護，那么很多創意公司就會消失，或者根本不會出現。
But there's a simpler reason: It's wrong to steal. It hurts other people. And it hurts your own character.
其實說到底，道理很簡單：偷竊是不道德的。這樣做會傷害其他人，也有損自己的名譽。
He knew, however, that the best way to stop piracy -- in fact the only way
然而他知道，阻止盜版的最佳辦法--其實也是唯一辦法，
was to offer an alternative that was more attractive than the brain-dead services that music companies were concocting.
就是提供一個比那些音樂公司推出的愚蠢服務更加吸引人的選擇。
"We believe that 80% of the people stealing stuff don't want to be, there's just no legal alternative," he told Andy Langer of Esquire.
他告訴《君子》雜志的安迪·蘭格:“我們相信，有80%下載盜版的人都是不得已的，只是沒有給他們提供合法的選擇而已。
"So we said, 'Let's create a legal alternative to this.'
所以我們說：‘我們創立一個合法的途徑吧。’
Everybody wins. Music companies win. The artists win. Apple wins.
這樣大家都會受益。音樂公司能贏利，藝術家能贏利，蘋果公司也能贏利。
And the user wins, because he gets a better service and doesn't have to be a thief."
而用戶也會有所收獲，因為他們既享受到了更好的服務，又不必偷竊。”
