本文由徐雪兒翻譯
（譯者按：作者Dan Cohen是美國公共數(shù)字圖書館的執(zhí)行理事。十年前，谷歌宣布將掃描全世界的書籍，為用戶提供搜索便利。由于在沒有獲得授權(quán)的情況下將全球尚存有著作權(quán)的近千萬種圖書收入其數(shù)字圖書館，2005年，谷歌網(wǎng)上圖書館因涉嫌侵權(quán)被美國出版商和美國作家協(xié)會告上法庭。）
A lawsuit can run on for so long that, even if major issues are still at stake, it can seem dated and even inconsequential by the time it’s resolved. Such is the case with Authors Guild v. Google, which likely came to a conclusion on Friday, more than 10 years after it began. The Second Circuit sided with Google, ruling that the company’s program to scan millions of books, including those still in copyright, was legal.
美國作家協(xié)會與谷歌之間打了十年的官司。這場漫長久遠的拉鋸戰(zhàn)曾經(jīng)讓人看不到頭，甚至覺得也許等到這些懸而未決的問題蓋棺定論的那天，這些問題本身早已經(jīng)無關(guān)痛癢了。但它終于在10月23日基本上走到終點——那天，第二巡回法院認定谷歌掃描圖書項目（包括掃描那些處在版權(quán)保護期內(nèi)的作品的行為）是合法的。谷歌贏了。
So much has changed on the Internet, in libraries, and with books in the decade since the Authors Guild first filed suit. In 2005, Google was a relatively young search engine—it had only gone public the previous year—looking to expand its horizon beyond the web. Now Google is part of a conglomerate named Alphabet, and Google Books seems very much like an early, vestigial effort among Alphabet’s larger body of projects, which includes higher-profile ventures like self-driving cars.
自美國作家協(xié)會對谷歌發(fā)起訴訟的這十年間，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)、圖書館和圖書都發(fā)生了巨大的變化。2005年，谷歌剛剛面世一年，作為新興的搜索引擎，想要拓展在自己在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的版圖。如今，谷歌創(chuàng)立Alphabet公司并轉(zhuǎn)為Alphabet旗下的子公司，谷歌圖書則像是Alphabet公司主體項目的早期努力成果。該項目還囊括更有名的投資項目，如無人駕駛車。
Ten years ago there were no Kindles, iPads, or postcard-sized smartphones to read on. Now the growth of e-reading is unmistakable. In 2011, 11 percent of Americans read an ebook; in 2014, 27 percent did. (In the same period, the number of Americans reading a print book fell, from 71 percent to 63 percent.) In the past 12 months, Americans read 120 million ebooks on just one app used by public libraries—an increase of 20 percent from the year before. And while big publishersmay be seeing their ebook sales plateau, self-published authors and indie presses—many of them selling directly to readers through Amazon—continue to gain market share, while charging a fraction of what print books cost. With so much of the landscape for digital books forever altered, what does Friday’s decision mean for readers, writers, libraries, and the public?
十年前，我們還沒有Kindle電子書和iPad，也沒有像明信片大小的手機可以用來閱讀。而現(xiàn)在，電子書的增長不容小覷。在2011年，只有11%的美國人閱讀電子書；在2014年，閱讀電子書的人數(shù)增長到27%（同時，美國看紙質(zhì)圖書的人從71%下降到63%）。而在過去的12個月里，美國人僅僅通過一個手機應用程序就閱讀了1.2億部來自公共圖書館的書，同比增長了20%。當大型出版商的電子書銷量進入平臺期的時候，自行出版的作者和獨立出版商的市場份額還在逐漸增長，他們大多數(shù)通過亞馬遜網(wǎng)站向讀者直接銷售圖書，而他們的開銷比印刷發(fā)行紙質(zhì)書小得多。電子圖書的市場已經(jīng)有了如此巨大的改變，那么法院的判決對讀者、作者、圖書館和公眾又有著什么樣的意義呢？
As Judge Pierre Leval emphasized throughout his ruling for the Appellate Court, as audacious as Google Books appeared at its inception, it seems less monumental today. Although Google did tip entire library shelves into the scanner without regard for copyright status—triggering an unsurprising revolt from authors and publishers—the tech giant only shows small “snippets” of in-copyright works. The full digitized books are walled-off, making only certain uses possible. Researchers can fact-check using Google Books, or they can examine the number of times particular words and phrases are mentioned in the corpus each year, but they can’t really read Google’s online version of most volumes.
正如法官Pierre Leval在上訴法庭中一直強調(diào)的，谷歌圖書在早期看起來是充滿創(chuàng)新精神的，但現(xiàn)在看起來也沒啥了不起。谷歌不顧版權(quán)保護將全球的圖書都掃描了一遍，這種做法在作者和出版商中引起了軒然大波，盡管如此，對于還在版權(quán)保護期內(nèi)的作品，這位科技巨頭還是只提供了小部分的預覽，完整版的電子書只供特定用途。研究者可以通過谷歌圖書核查事實，或者可以查詢特定詞語和詞組每年在語料庫中出現(xiàn)的次數(shù)，但是大部分谷歌在線的圖書他們都不能閱讀。
This makes Google Books a wonderful tool—a transformative one, in the eyes of the court, and thus non-infringing—but it also means that the service has ended up being more tantalizing than fulfilling. What Google has created is less a universal library than a tinted window into one.
這讓谷歌圖書帶上了很強的工具屬性。在法官眼里它充滿變革意味，因此合理又合法，但同時也象征著這項服務最終并不沒有達到預期的效果。谷歌創(chuàng)造的并不能說是一個切切實實的全球書庫，充其量是讓你透過有色玻璃閱讀其資料庫中浩瀚的電子藏書——你只能看到一部分而已。
It was not always going to be this way. A proposed 2011 settlement between Google and its antagonists would have laid the groundwork for paid access to all of the scanned books. Yet many book lovers viewed such a settlement (rightly, in my opinion) as creating an undesirable, near-monopolistic online book outlet. The judge presiding over the case, Denny Chin, agreed and rejected it, ruling for the Southern District of New York that Google Books, as is, was a fair use. The Second Circuit has unanimously concurred.
但事情本不是這樣的，2011年的谷歌和美國作家協(xié)會達成和解協(xié)議，將允許谷歌以付費方式管理所有掃描圖書。然而在圖書愛好者的眼里，這份協(xié)議不合情理，且意欲建立一個近乎壟斷的在線圖書商店（然而在我看來是正確的做法）。代表紐約南區(qū)的巡回法官Denny Chin判定谷歌圖書屬于“合理使用”原則并駁回和解協(xié)議，第二巡回法庭也一致通過。
It’s now a good time to think about more heterogeneous models and markets for ebooks, including in the discussion not only the Googles and Amazons of the world, but also libraries, which find existing channels and platforms for ebooks less than ideal.
谷歌、亞馬遜、圖書館等等對電子書現(xiàn)有的渠道和平臺不滿意的各方，都是時候好好考慮下電子圖書接下來發(fā)展的模型及市場了。
This matches larger trends in digital librarianship. As Google has shifted its attention away from books, nonprofits have stepped in to ensure access to our shared culture. The Digital Public Library of America, which I direct, brings together the digitized contents of America’s libraries, archives, and museums.HathiTrust—which was also unsuccessfully sued by the Author Guild—was established by universities to preserve digital copies of their holdings for the long term. The Internet Archive also has scanning centers in multiple locations, and many smaller institutions have started their own digitization programs.
當谷歌的正從圖書上轉(zhuǎn)移注意力，非盈利組織已經(jīng)深入到我們的分享文化中了。美國數(shù)字公共圖書館將美國圖書館、文檔和博物館的數(shù)字資源整合在一起。各大學合作建立了數(shù)字庫，從長遠考慮以數(shù)字化形式保護他們的資產(chǎn)，美國作家協(xié)會也曾對此上訴但以失敗告終。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)檔案館在多個地方設(shè)有掃描中心，許多小型組織也都開始了他們的數(shù)字化項目。這與未來的數(shù)字圖書管理發(fā)展趨勢相吻合。
For those organizations to provide greater access to digitized print books, the United States will have to solve thorny issues about the status of much of what is held in its cultural-heritage institutions. Works from before 1923 are in the public domain, and recent volumes are clearly under copyright. But a large percentage of books between the distant and recent past are in a grey territory where their status is foggy. Their copyright may not have been renewed, and their publishers and authors are long gone. With imperfect records we can’t be sure what we can do with these millions of books.
對于想提供更優(yōu)質(zhì)電子渠道的機構(gòu)來說，美國政府先要解決一個棘手的問題：在文化遺產(chǎn)機構(gòu)中，大多數(shù)作品的版權(quán)都狀態(tài)不明。根據(jù)美國版權(quán)法規(guī)定，在1923年前的作品屬于公共領(lǐng)域，近些年的作品無疑還在版權(quán)期內(nèi)。然而在這之間的大部分作品都處于灰色地帶，它們的版權(quán)也許還沒有更新，但是他們的出版者和作者早已不在人世。由于記錄不明，我們也不知道能對這些上百萬冊的圖書做些什么。
Fortunately, in the U.S., we can also appeal to fair use, an important principle that makes the American system of copyright different from most other countries. As the length of copyright terms has been repeatedly extended, fair use acts as a counterbalance, providing exceptions for using copyrighted materials in ways that benefit society without destroying the market for books. Authors also benefit from fair use, by being able to quote, parody, and build upon copyrighted works.
幸運的是，在美國我們還能訴諸“合理使用”原則，這使得美國的版權(quán)體系與大多數(shù)國家有所不同。由于版權(quán)保護的時間反復被延長，“合理使用”成為一種平衡手段，在不損害圖書市場的同時，為社會大眾提供使用版權(quán)保護資料的機會。作者也能引用、模仿和發(fā)展有版權(quán)的作品，從“合理使用”原則中受益，
However, like the status of so many books on our libraries’ shelves, the nature of fair use has often been unclear. Judges are asked to balance four fairly abstract factors in deciding whether a use is fair, including how creative works are being repurposed and to what extent, and how the market for the original might be impacted.
然而，正如我們圖書館書架上許多版權(quán)不明的書籍一樣，“合理使用”的本質(zhì)常常是不明確的。法官要根據(jù)“合理使用四項原則”來判定使用是否合理，包括創(chuàng)作作品被改變的方式及程度，原作市場會受到何種影響。（譯者按：關(guān)于美國版權(quán)法的“合理使用四項原則”為1、使用的目的和性質(zhì)，包括是否屬于商業(yè)性質(zhì)或非營利性的教學目的；2、該受版權(quán)保護作品的性質(zhì)；3、與該完整作品相比，所使用部分的數(shù)量和內(nèi)容之實質(zhì)性；4、該使用對受版權(quán)保護作品的潛在市場或價值的影響。）
In a narrow sense, the decade-long litigation over Google Books ended with a judgment about the balance of these factors for a specific project: a large company scanning and indexing the contents of millions of volumes.
狹義上來說，這場官司就是根據(jù)“合理使用四項原則”對一個具體項目進行權(quán)衡，項目內(nèi)容就是一家大公司要對數(shù)百萬的圖書進行掃描并編入索引。最終，谷歌圖書長達十年的官司以勝利告終。
But critically, and with greater and lasting impact, the case also helped to clarify fair use in general. *Authors Guild v. Google *stands to make fair use much more muscular. Because many institutions want to avoid legal and financial risk, many possible uses that the courts would find fair—including a number of non-commercial, educational uses—are simply never attempted. A clearer fair-use principle, with stronger support from the courts, will make libraries and similar organizations more confident about pursuing forms of broader digital access.
但更重要的是，這起官司有助于明確“合理使用”的概念，美國作家協(xié)會和谷歌的對戰(zhàn)使得“合理使用”機制變得更加強健。先前，許多機構(gòu)為了避免法律和金融上的風險，對法庭認定合理的使用方式都從未涉足，包括一系列非商業(yè)的和教育用途的使用。這下有了法庭的強力支持，和更清晰的“合理使用”原則，圖書館和其他類似的機構(gòu)將對追求更廣泛的數(shù)字渠道充滿信心。
After all, as Judge Leval emphasized: “While authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public.” It may have taken 10 years, but that crucial reminder of copyright’s goal is anything but dated and inconsequential. It will serve all of us as we think about how books are written, read, and preserved for future generations.
畢竟正如Leval法官所強調(diào)的：“毫無疑問，版權(quán)法的主要受益人是作家們，但它最終是要造福廣羅大眾的。”雖然花了十年，但這場官司時刻提醒我們版權(quán)保護現(xiàn)在仍舉足輕重。想想一本書從誕生，到人人傳閱，再傳承給下一代，版權(quán)保護影響著我們所有人。
（本文系徐雪兒翻譯作品，ONES Piece介紹：星辰大海之下有太多被埋沒的寶藏，我們?nèi)滩蛔∠牒煤貌亮亮私o你看……ONES Piece是一個由ONES Ventures發(fā)起的非營利翻譯計劃，聚焦科技、創(chuàng)投和商業(yè)。如有優(yōu)質(zhì)內(nèi)容推薦或想要加入計劃，請發(fā)郵件至embrace@weareones.com）
