评论
打印
A collision last month between members of the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) and ecommerce giant, Alibaba, is a tale of high emotions, larger-than-life characters and festering animosity between brand owners and the world’s largest online platform. Beneath the noise, however, are serious questions of how to cope with an ocean of fakes.
国际反假联盟(IACC)部分成员与电商巨头阿里巴巴(Alibaba)上月的冲突，是一个传奇人物之间慷慨激昂的故事，展现了品牌所有人与全球最大在线平台之间不断深化的敌意。然而，在这场风波的背后，是一个严肃的问题：如何应对假货泛滥？
Courts worldwide are grappling with whether to place the burden of policing online counterfeit on platforms, rights owners or both. Brand owners chafe at having to commit vast resources to policing online platforms. Platforms protest that filtering every transaction and trying to determine what is counterfeit across all industry sectors is mission impossible.
世界各地的法庭都在纠结于一个问题：对在线假货执法的责任应该由谁来承担——平台还是权利所有人、抑或双方应共同承担？品牌所有人不满于自己不得不投入大量资源监督在线平台，平台方则抗议称，筛选每笔交易并努力甄别所有行业的假货是不可能完成的任务。
We have been here before. The same problems plagued eBay. In 1999, I faced the company’s deputy general counsel, Jay Monahan, in a windowless law office in New York on behalf of a number of luxury brands. Rights holders were concerned that eBay was fostering an environment friendly to fakes. Mr Monahan was grappling with demands to rid eBay of deceptive offerings. To delist high volumes of fakes and avoid endless litigation, we had to to work together: we hammered out a constructive co-operation which has endured. How did eBay do it? By ceaselessly monitoring the seller listings on their back end and by putting extraordinary resources into developing cutting edge tools and strategies, including smart filtering, possibly the first notice-and-take down procedures for trade mark violations, stringent measures against repeat offenders and — crucially — fast response times (usually within hours) to take down notices. These methods were revolutionary then and still provide the gold standard for online retailers.
我们不是第一回置身于这样的境地了。同样的问题曾困扰eBay。1999年，我代表多个奢侈品牌，在纽约的一间没有窗户的律师办公室里，与eBay副总法律顾问杰伊•莫纳汉(Jay Monahan)会面。当时，权利所有人担心的是，eBay营造了有利于假货生存的环境；莫纳汉则在焦头烂额地应对让eBay清除假货的要求。为了下架大量的假货并避免无休止的诉讼，我们必须通力合作：我们敲定了建设性的合作协议——如今该协议依然有效。eBay当时是怎么做到的？不断在后台监测卖家上架的商品，并投入大量资源开发最前沿的工具和策略，包括智能筛选、对商标侵权行为实施“收到通知即下架”（可能是首个此类流程）、对屡教不改者采取严厉措施，还有很关键的是，收到下架通知后快速响应（通常在数小时内）。这些方法当时是革命性的，现在仍是在线零售商中的最高标准。
Meg Whitman, eBay’s chief executive at the time, understood that credibility with brand owners is key.
eBay时任首席执行官梅格•惠特曼(Meg Whitman)明白，获取品牌所有人的信任至关重要。
The company faced a choice: do as little as it could hope to get away with, or back up its rhetoric with breakthrough technology and procedures. By opting for the latter, it spawned an era of voluntary co-operation with brands.
该公司当时面临一个选择：是尽可能推诿，还是说到做到、拿出突破性的技术和流程。eBay选择了后者，由此开创了与品牌自愿合作的时代。
Alibaba finds itself at a similar crossroads. The Chinese company has become the world’s biggest retail online platform. Its chief executive Jack Ma was appointed to David Cameron’s business advisory group, met US President Barack Obama and Alibaba was invited to join the IACC.
如今，阿里巴巴发现自己处于类似的十字路口。这家中国公司已成为全球最大的在线零售平台。阿里巴巴首席执行官马云(Jack Ma)被任命为戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)的商业顾问团成员，与美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)会晤，该公司还被邀请加入IACC。
This invitation, though, sparked outrage among members, with Lee Sporn, general counsel to Michael Kors, stating: “The IACC has chosen to provide cover to our most dangerous and damaging adversary.” Gucci, Michael Kors and Tiffany resigned from the anti-fakes group. Alibaba’s membership was revoked and Mr Ma cancelled his keynote speech at the IACC’s annual conference. Alibaba’s charm offensive lost its way. There is a way back however. If Alibaba develops modern weapons for the current online environment, it has the potential, like eBay, for constructive co-operation with brand owners.
然而，这种邀请引发了IACC成员的强烈不满，时尚品牌Michael Kors的总法律顾问李•斯波恩(Lee Sporn)表示：“IACC选择为我们最危险且最具破坏力的敌手提供保护伞。”古驰(Gucci)、Michael Kors和蒂芙尼(Tiffany)退出了IACC。阿里巴巴的会员资格被暂停，马云取消了原定在IACC年度大会上的主题演讲。阿里巴巴的魅力攻势迷失了方向。然而，马云还有退路。如果阿里巴巴为当前的在线环境开发出现代化武器，它就有可能像eBay那样，与品牌所有人达成建设性的合作关系。
Pirates are more adept at using new technologies than those trying to shut them down. This has turned the fight against counterfeit sites into a “whack a mole” game. Take down a pirate page and an identical one pops up in a new location. Michael Evans, Alibaba’s president, has asserted, however, that Alibaba has “the tools to change the way this war is waged . . . using data and technology . . . to defeat the counterfeiters”. Rights holders are understandably keen for Alibaba to demonstrate the advanced tools of which it speaks. At a meeting last week, a group of British brand owners presented Alibaba with a wish list including notice and trackdown, digital fingerprinting and a piracy indicia module for red-flagging offenders. Such tracing parallels the fundamental “follow-the-money” principle. The meeting concluded on a positive note. If Alibaba delivers, it will be a game changer by stopping counterfeiting at source rather than at platform level.
与那些试图打击侵权的人相比，侵权者更善于使用新技术。这让打击假货的活动成为“打地鼠”游戏。关闭一个假货网页，同样的网页又在新的地方冒出来。然而，阿里巴巴总裁迈克尔•埃文斯(Michael Evans)坚称，阿里巴巴有“工具改变这场战争的进行方式……使用数据和技术……击败造假者”。可以理解的是，权利所有人渴望阿里巴巴实实在在地拿出它所说的先进工具。在上周的一场会议上，一群英国品牌所有人向阿里巴巴提交了一份愿望清单，包括通知和追查、数字指纹以及为高危侵权者创建侵权标记模块。此类追踪方法与基本的“追踪金钱流向”法相似。此次会议以积极的基调结束。如果阿里巴巴用实际行动满足品牌所有人的期望，就将彻底改变反假战争的格局——从源头上制止造假、而非在平台上清除假货。
Alibaba’s implementation of any new voluntary measures must be swift and rigorous. If not, courts and legislators will be pressed to act. Alibaba should not waste a crisis. It can turn it into an opportunity.
阿里巴巴必须迅速、严格地执行一切新的自愿措施。不然的话，法庭和立法机构将被迫采取行动。阿里巴巴不应浪费一场危机，它可以将这场危机转化为机遇。
