本文由徐雪儿翻译
（译者按：作者Dan Cohen是美国公共数字图书馆的执行理事。十年前，谷歌宣布将扫描全世界的书籍，为用户提供搜索便利。由于在没有获得授权的情况下将全球尚存有著作权的近千万种图书收入其数字图书馆，2005年，谷歌网上图书馆因涉嫌侵权被美国出版商和美国作家协会告上法庭。）
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.
美国作家协会与谷歌之间打了十年的官司。这场漫长久远的拉锯战曾经让人看不到头，甚至觉得也许等到这些悬而未决的问题盖棺定论的那天，这些问题本身早已经无关痛痒了。但它终于在10月23日基本上走到终点——那天，第二巡回法院认定谷歌扫描图书项目（包括扫描那些处在版权保护期内的作品的行为）是合法的。谷歌赢了。
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.
自美国作家协会对谷歌发起诉讼的这十年间，互联网、图书馆和图书都发生了巨大的变化。2005年，谷歌刚刚面世一年，作为新兴的搜索引擎，想要拓展在自己在互联网的版图。如今，谷歌创立Alphabet公司并转为Alphabet旗下的子公司，谷歌图书则像是Alphabet公司主体项目的早期努力成果。该项目还囊括更有名的投资项目，如无人驾驶车。
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，我们还没有Kindle电子书和iPad，也没有像明信片大小的手机可以用来阅读。而现在，电子书的增长不容小觑。在2011年，只有11%的美国人阅读电子书；在2014年，阅读电子书的人数增长到27%（同时，美国看纸质图书的人从71%下降到63%）。而在过去的12个月里，美国人仅仅通过一个手机应用程序就阅读了1.2亿部来自公共图书馆的书，同比增长了20%。当大型出版商的电子书销量进入平台期的时候，自行出版的作者和独立出版商的市场份额还在逐渐增长，他们大多数通过亚马逊网站向读者直接销售图书，而他们的开销比印刷发行纸质书小得多。电子图书的市场已经有了如此巨大的改变，那么法院的判决对读者、作者、图书馆和公众又有着什么样的意义呢？
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在上诉法庭中一直强调的，谷歌图书在早期看起来是充满创新精神的，但现在看起来也没啥了不起。谷歌不顾版权保护将全球的图书都扫描了一遍，这种做法在作者和出版商中引起了轩然大波，尽管如此，对于还在版权保护期内的作品，这位科技巨头还是只提供了小部分的预览，完整版的电子书只供特定用途。研究者可以通过谷歌图书核查事实，或者可以查询特定词语和词组每年在语料库中出现的次数，但是大部分谷歌在线的图书他们都不能阅读。
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.
这让谷歌图书带上了很强的工具属性。在法官眼里它充满变革意味，因此合理又合法，但同时也象征着这项服务最终并不没有达到预期的效果。谷歌创造的并不能说是一个切切实实的全球书库，充其量是让你透过有色玻璃阅读其资料库中浩瀚的电子藏书——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.
但事情本不是这样的，2011年的谷歌和美国作家协会达成和解协议，将允许谷歌以付费方式管理所有扫描图书。然而在图书爱好者的眼里，这份协议不合情理，且意欲建立一个近乎垄断的在线图书商店（然而在我看来是正确的做法）。代表纽约南区的巡回法官Denny Chin判定谷歌图书属于“合理使用”原则并驳回和解协议，第二巡回法庭也一致通过。
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、亚马逊、图书馆等等对电子书现有的渠道和平台不满意的各方，都是时候好好考虑下电子图书接下来发展的模型及市场了。
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.
当谷歌的正从图书上转移注意力，非盈利组织已经深入到我们的分享文化中了。美国数字公共图书馆将美国图书馆、文档和博物馆的数字资源整合在一起。各大学合作建立了数字库，从长远考虑以数字化形式保护他们的资产，美国作家协会也曾对此上诉但以失败告终。互联网档案馆在多个地方设有扫描中心，许多小型组织也都开始了他们的数字化项目。这与未来的数字图书管理发展趋势相吻合。
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.
对于想提供更优质电子渠道的机构来说，美国政府先要解决一个棘手的问题：在文化遗产机构中，大多数作品的版权都状态不明。根据美国版权法规定，在1923年前的作品属于公共领域，近些年的作品无疑还在版权期内。然而在这之间的大部分作品都处于灰色地带，它们的版权也许还没有更新，但是他们的出版者和作者早已不在人世。由于记录不明，我们也不知道能对这些上百万册的图书做些什么。
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.
幸运的是，在美国我们还能诉诸“合理使用”原则，这使得美国的版权体系与大多数国家有所不同。由于版权保护的时间反复被延长，“合理使用”成为一种平衡手段，在不损害图书市场的同时，为社会大众提供使用版权保护资料的机会。作者也能引用、模仿和发展有版权的作品，从“合理使用”原则中受益，
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，正如我们图书馆书架上许多版权不明的书籍一样，“合理使用”的本质常常是不明确的。法官要根据“合理使用四项原则”来判定使用是否合理，包括创作作品被改变的方式及程度，原作市场会受到何种影响。（译者按：关于美国版权法的“合理使用四项原则”为1、使用的目的和性质，包括是否属于商业性质或非营利性的教学目的；2、该受版权保护作品的性质；3、与该完整作品相比，所使用部分的数量和内容之实质性；4、该使用对受版权保护作品的潜在市场或价值的影响。）
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.
狭义上来说，这场官司就是根据“合理使用四项原则”对一个具体项目进行权衡，项目内容就是一家大公司要对数百万的图书进行扫描并编入索引。最终，谷歌图书长达十年的官司以胜利告终。
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，这起官司有助于明确“合理使用”的概念，美国作家协会和谷歌的对战使得“合理使用”机制变得更加强健。先前，许多机构为了避免法律和金融上的风险，对法庭认定合理的使用方式都从未涉足，包括一系列非商业的和教育用途的使用。这下有了法庭的强力支持，和更清晰的“合理使用”原则，图书馆和其他类似的机构将对追求更广泛的数字渠道充满信心。
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.
毕竟正如Leval法官所强调的：“毫无疑问，版权法的主要受益人是作家们，但它最终是要造福广罗大众的。”虽然花了十年，但这场官司时刻提醒我们版权保护现在仍举足轻重。想想一本书从诞生，到人人传阅，再传承给下一代，版权保护影响着我们所有人。
（本文系徐雪儿翻译作品，ONES Piece介绍：星辰大海之下有太多被埋没的宝藏，我们忍不住想好好擦亮了给你看……ONES Piece是一个由ONES Ventures发起的非营利翻译计划，聚焦科技、创投和商业。如有优质内容推荐或想要加入计划，请发邮件至[email protected]）