start proofread

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 227 deletions

diff --git a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
index 39d21ab..a7d7ab6 100644
--- a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
+++ b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
@@ -1,288 +1,71 @@
----
-Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
-description: Untitled Document
-distribution: global
-keywords: Untitled Document
-resource-type: document
-title: Untitled Document
-...
-
-1. Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors {#misinterpreting-copyrighta-series-oferrors .chapter}
-===============================================
-
-对版权的错误解读——一系列错误
-============================
-
-@begingroup @advance@vsize by 6pt 
-Something strange and dangerous is
-happening in copyright law. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists
-to benefit users—those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or
-run software—not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as
-people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright
-restrictions imposed on them “for their own benefit,” the US government
-is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into
-obedience with harsh new penalties.
+## 对版权的错误解读——一系列错误
 
-版权法中发生了一些奇怪而又危险的事情。在美国宪法环境下，版权存在的意义是使用户获益——用户是指那些读书、听音乐、看电影或者运行软件的人们——而非为了出版商或作者。然而，即使人们越来越倾向于拒绝并且反抗那些“为了他们自己的好处”而强行施加给他们的各种版权限制，美国政府仍然正在施加更多的限制，并且试图以新的严厉惩罚措施来恐吓公众以迫使其服从。
-
-How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their
-stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that
-purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United
-States copyright law: the US Constitution.
-
-那么，版权政策是如何一步一步地走到与其宣称的初衷背道而驰的地步的呢？而我们又如何才能使其重新回到与其初衷相符的正轨呢？为了理解这些，我们应当首先审视美国版权法的根基：美国宪法。
+> Copyright (C) 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009–2011 自由软件基金会。本文最初于 2002 年发表于 <http://gnu.org>
 
-### Copyright in the US Constitution {#copyright-in-the-us-constitution .subheading}
+版权法中发生了一些奇怪而又危险的事情。在美国宪法环境下，版权存在的意义是使用户获益——用户是指那些读书、听音乐、看电影或者运行软件的人们——而非为了出版商或作者。然而，即使人们越来越倾向于拒绝并且反抗那些“为了他们自己的好处”而强行施加给他们的各种版权限制，美国政府仍然正在施加更多的限制，并且试图以新的严厉惩罚措施来恐吓公众以迫使其服从。
 
 ### 美国宪法中的版权
 
-When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were
-entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected. The founders
-of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a
-natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for
-the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright
-system with this clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8):
-
 当美国宪法被起草之时，作者们应当被赋予某种版权垄断权这一想法被提出——然后又被拒绝了。我们国家的创始人采纳了另一种假设，即版权并非作者们的一种自然的权利，而是以进步之名，人为地为他们做出的一种认可。宪法通过这一条款（第 I 章，第 8 条，第 8 款）许可了这样一种版权体系：
 
-> \[Congress shall have the power\] to promote the Progress of Science
-> and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
-> Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
-> Discoveries.
+> （国会应当拥有权力）通过在一段限定的时间内保证作者和发明者对其作品或发明拥有专属权利，以促进自然科学和文学艺术的进步。
 
-> （国会应当拥有权力）通过在一段限定的时间内保证作者和发明者对其作品或发明拥有专属权利，以促进自然科学和有益文科的进步。
-
-The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means
-benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in *Fox Film v.
-Doyal,*[(1)](#FOOT1) the court said,
-
-美国最高法院已经一再强调，促进进步意味着保护那些版权作品的使用者的利益。例如，在 Fox Film 起诉 Doyal 的案例[(1)](#FOOT1)中，法庭说道：
-
-> The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in
-> conferring the \[copyright\] monopoly lie in the general benefits
-> derived by the public from the labors of authors.
+美国最高法院已经一再强调，促进进步意味着保护那些版权作品的使用者的利益。例如，在 *Fox Film 起诉 Doyal 的案例*[(1)](#FOOT1)中，法庭说道：
 
 > 美国的根本利益以及赋予（版权）垄断权的主要目的是基于那些由公众得来、通过作者的劳动获得的普遍利益。
 
-This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not *required* by
-the Constitution, only *permitted* as an option—and why it is supposed
-to last for “limited times.” If copyright were a natural right,
-something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could
-justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more
-than everyone’s house should become public property after a certain
-lapse of time from its construction.
-
 这一根本性的决定解释了为何版权不是被宪法强制要求的，而只是作为一种选项而被许可——以及为何只应该在一段“限定的时间”内有效。如果版权是一种自然的权利，即某种作者们由于应当拥有它而拥有的东西，那么没有任何理由可以解释为何可以在一定时期之后终止这种权利，就如同不能解释为何每个人的房子在建成一定时期之后应当成为公共财产。
 
-@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip 著作权所有 (C) 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009–2011 自由软件基金会 {本文最初于 2002 年发表于 <http://gnu.org>，此版本是 @fsfsthreecite 的一部分。}
-
-### The “Copyright Bargain” {#the-copyright-bargain .subheading}
-
 ### 版权交易
 
-The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to
-publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather,
-it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for
-authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends
-the public’s natural rights, on the public’s behalf, as part of a deal
-to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this
-concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a government purchase of a
-highway or an airplane using taxpayers’ money, except that the
-government spends our freedom instead of our money.
-
-版权体系通过为出版商和作者提供特权以保证其利益进而维持其自身运转；然而，它如此做并非为了他们的利益。与之相反，它如此运作是为了改变他们的行为：即刺激作者们创作并且发表更多作品。事实上，政府是在以公众的名义消费公众的自然权利，作为交易的一部分为公众带来更多的发表作品。法学家们将这一概念称为“版权交易”。就如同政府花费纳税人的钱财以购买一条高速公路或者一架飞机，区别只是在于此处政府花费的是我们的自由而非我们的钱财。
-
-But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public?
-Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue
-of copyright policy is part of this question. If we misunderstand the
-nature of the question, we will tend to decide the issues badly.
+版权体系通过为出版商和作者提供特权以保证其利益进而维持其自身运转；然而，这么做并非为了他们的利益。与之相反，它如此运作是为了改变他们的行为：即刺激作者们创作并且发表更多作品。事实上，政府是在以公众的名义消费公众的自然权利，作为交易的一部分为公众带来更多的发表作品。法学家们将这一概念称为“版权交易”。就如同政府花费纳税人的钱财以购买一条高速公路或者一架飞机，区别只是在于此处政府花费的是我们的自由而非我们的钱财。
 
 但是，这种版权交易对于公众而言真的是一种公平的交易吗？众多其他交易方式都是可能的；哪一种方式最好呢？版权政策的每一个问题都是这个问题的一部分。如果我们对这个问题的本质产生误解，我们将会倾向于对这些问题做出不恰当的抉择。
 
-The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In
-practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the
-publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of
-the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is usually
-the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To better
-reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this article
-refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of copyright
-powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as “readers,”
-even though using them does not always mean reading, because “the users”
-is remote and abstract.
-
-宪法批准了将版权权力赋予作者。而实际上，作者们通常将其转让给出版商；因此实际上通常是出版商而非作者在行使这些权力从而得到大部分利益，尽管作者有时也能得到一小部分利益。因此通常只是那些出版商在游说政府以进一步增加版权权力。为了更好地反映关于版权的事实而非那些鬼话，本文将会把出版商而非作者称为版权权力的持有者，并且将有版权的作品的使用者称为“读者”，即使对这些作品的使用并非只能是阅读，这是由于“用户”一词过于遥远和抽象。
-
-### The First Error: “Striking a Balance” {#the-first-error-striking-a-balance .subheading}
+宪法批准了将版权权力赋予作者。而实际上，作者们通常将其转让给出版商；因此实际上通常是出版商而非作者在行使这些权力从而得到大部分利益，尽管作者有时也能得到一小部分利益。因此通常只是那些出版商在游说政府以进一步增加版权权力。为了更好地反映关于版权的事实而非那些鬼话，本文将会把出版商而非作者称为版权权力的持有者，并且将有版权作品的使用者称为“读者”，即使对这些作品的使用并非只能是阅读，这是由于“用户”一词过于遥远和抽象。
 
 ### 第一个错误：寻求平衡
 
-The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading
-public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a
-means toward that end. Readers’ interests and publishers’ interests are
-thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in
-misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the
-publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.
-
 版权交易将公众置于首要地位：公众读者的利益是其一端；出版商的利益（如果有）只是达成这一目的的一种方式。因此，读者的利益和出版商的利益首先在质上是不对等的。对版权的目的的第一步错误解读是将出版商的利益的重要性提升到与读者的利益相同的级别上来。
 
-It is often said that US copyright law is meant to “strike a balance”
-between the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this
-interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated
-in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to
-the copyright bargain.
-
 通常有这样的说法，美国版权法旨在在出版商和读者的利益之间“寻求平衡”。那些援引这种解读方式的人们将其呈现为一种对宪法中所陈述的基本立场的复述，换言之，它应当与所谓的版权交易等价。
 
-But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different
-conceptually, and different in their implications. The balance concept
-assumes that the readers’ and publishers’ interests differ in importance
-only quantitatively, in *how much weight* we should give them, and in
-what actions they apply to. The term “stakeholders” is often used to
-frame the issue in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a
-policy decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative
-distinction between the readers’ and publishers’ interests which is at
-the root of the government’s participation in the copyright bargain.
-
-但是，这两种解读其实有着天壤之别；它们不仅在概念上截然不同，在涵义上也是完全不同的。这种“平衡”的概念假设读者和出版商的利益在重要性上的差别只是量上的，即我们应当分别给予它们多少权重，以及它们适用于哪些场合。“利益相关方”的概念通常被用于以这种方式描述这一问题。这种观点抹杀了读者和出版商的利益在质上的区别，而这种区别正是政府参与版权交易的基本点。
-
-The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great
-protection for the public in the copyright bargain—the idea that
-copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers,
-never in the name of the publishers—is discarded by the “balance”
-interpretation. Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an
-end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the
-“balance” concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of
-someone other than the public.
+但是，这两种解读其实有着天壤之别；它们不仅在概念上截然不同，在涵义上也是完全不同的。这种“平衡”的概念假设读者和出版商的利益在重要性上的差别只是量上的，即我们应当分别给予它们多少*权重*，以及它们适用于哪些场合。“利益相关方”的概念通常被用于以这种方式描述这一问题。这种观点抹杀了读者和出版商的利益在质上的区别，而这种区别正是政府参与版权交易的基本点。
 
 这种偷换概念的影响是深远的，由于在版权交易中对公众利益的强有力的保护——版权特权只能以读者之名被合理化，而绝非以出版商之名被合理化这一理念——被这种“平衡”的解读方式所抛弃了。由于出版商的利益也被视为其中一端，它也可以使版权特权合理化；换言之，“平衡”概念宣称版权特权可以以公众以外的某人之名被合理化。
 
-As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance” concept is to
-reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The
-copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the
-readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this
-burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that
-publishers will benefit from additional privilege. Unless harm to the
-readers can be proved, sufficient to “outweigh” this benefit, we are led
-to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege
-they request.
-
 从实践角度讲，这种“平衡”概念的结果是逆转了在版权法中做出更改所需正当理由的负担。版权交易将这种负担置于出版商一方，他们需要说服读者转让部分自由。而平衡概念逆转了这种负担，实事求是地说，由于对于出版商将会通过额外的特权得到好处这一点没有异议。除非这对读者造成的伤害能够被证实，并且这种伤害大到了已经超出读者所能得到的好处的程度，我们将会得出结论：出版商被赋予了它们要求的几乎所有特权。
 
-Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and readers
-denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it.
-
 由于在出版商和读者之间“寻求平衡”的理念否定了读者本应拥有的首要位置，我们必须坚决反对。
 
-### Balancing against What? {#balancing-against-what .subheading}
-
 ### 针对什么的平衡？
 
-When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of
-the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal—best
-for the public, not for the other party in the agreement.
-
 当政府为公众购买任何东西之时，它是在以公众的名义进行交易；它的责任是试图得到最佳的可能交易方式——对公众而言的最佳，而非对于交易中的另一方。
 
-For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build
-highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the
-public’s money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the
-price down.
-
 例如，当政府与建设公司签署合同以修建高速公路时，政府应当致力于花费尽可能少的公众资金。相关政府机构将会通过竞争性投标的方式来降低总价。
 
-As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors
-will not bid that low. Although not entitled to special consideration,
-they have the usual rights of citizens in a free society, including the
-right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even the lowest bid will be
-high enough for some contractor to make money. So there is indeed a
-balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate balancing of two
-interests each with claim to special consideration. It is a balance
-between a public goal and market forces. The government tries to obtain
-for the taxpaying motorists the best deal they can get in the context of
-a free society and a free market.
-
 从实践角度讲，这一价格不可能为零，因为承包商不可能叫出那么低的价格。尽管没有获得特别报酬的资格，它们在自由社会中仍然享有通常的公民权利，包括拒绝对其不利的合同的权利；即使最低竞价也足以使某些承包商有利可图。因此，这里确实存在着某种平衡。但这并非由于利益双方各自要求得到特殊报酬而达成的一种蓄意的平衡。这是一种在公众目标和市场力量之间达成的平衡。政府试图为驾车的纳税人获得他们在自由社会和自由市场的大背景下可能得到的最佳交易。
 
-In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of
-our money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government’s
-responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even greater
-than its responsibility to spend our money thus. Governments must never
-put the publishers’ interests on a par with the public’s freedom.
-
 在版权交易中，政府花费的是我们的自由而非我们的钱财。自由远比金钱更加珍贵，因此政府对于理性而节约地花费我们的自由的责任更重于花钱的责任。政府绝不应该将出版商的利益与公众的自由相提并论。
 
-### Not “Balance” but “Trade-Off” {#not-balance-but-trade-off .subheading}
-
 ### 不是平衡，而是折中
 
-The idea of balancing the readers’ interests against the publishers’ is
-the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two
-interests to be weighed: two interests *of the readers.* Readers have an
-interest in their own freedom in using published works; depending on
-circumstances, they may also have an interest in encouraging publication
-through some kind of incentive system.
-
-将读者利益与出版商利益进行平衡是对版权政策的错误判断，但是，此处确实有两种利益需要被权衡：关于读者的两种利益。读者自身有其关于使用出版作品的自由的利益；取决于所处环境，他们还可能拥有通过某种激励系统鼓励发表作品的权利。
-
-The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come to stand as
-shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance” between the readers and
-the publishers. Therefore, to use the word “balance” in regard to the
-readers’ two interests would be confusing.[(2)](#FOOT2) We need another
-term.
+将读者利益与出版商利益进行平衡是对版权政策的错误判断，但是，此处确实有两种利益需要被权衡：关于*读者*的两种利益。读者自身有其关于使用出版作品的自由的利益；取决于所处环境，他们还可能拥有通过某种激励系统鼓励发表作品的权利。
 
 由于在讨论版权问题时，“平衡”一词被用于指代在读者和出版商之间“寻求平衡”这一理念。因此，对于读者自身的两种利益使用“平衡”一词将会产生歧义[(2)](#FOOT2)。我们需要另一个术语。
 
-In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and
-cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a “trade-off.”
-Therefore, rather than speaking of “striking the right balance” between
-parties, we should speak of “finding the right trade-off between
-spending our freedom and keeping it.”
-
 通常意义上，当某一团体拥有两种部分冲突的目标而不能两全之时，我们称之为“折中”。因此，与其说在两个团体之间“寻求正确的平衡”，不如说“在花费与保留我们的自由之间寻求最佳的折中”。
 
-### The Second Error: Maximizing One Output {#the-second-error-maximizing-one-output .subheading}
-
-### 第二个错误：最大化一项输出
-
-The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of
-maximizing—not just increasing—the number of published works. The
-erroneous concept of “striking a balance” elevated the publishers to
-parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the
-readers.
+### 第二个错误：最大化单一输出
 
 版权政策中的第二个错误包括将最大化——而非仅仅是增加——出版作品数量作为最终目标。第一个错误概念“寻求平衡”将出版商的地位提升到与读者对等的位置，而这第二个错误则将它们的地位进一步提升到远在读者之上的位置。
 
-When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity
-in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for
-other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and
-choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The
-principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on
-one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of
-resources; we generally choose to keep some money for another use.
-
 当我们购买物品时，我们通常不会买空所有库存或者只买最贵的型号。与之相反，我们将会为其他购买需求预留资金，对于任意特定的物品，只买我们所需要的，并且选择一种能够满足需求的型号而非最高端的型号。根据报酬递减原理，将我们的所有可用资金花在某一特定物品上很可能是一种低效的资源分配方式；我们一般会选择将部分资金留作他用。
 
-Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase.
-The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and
-whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we
-trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each
-trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller
-increment in literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero,
-we may well say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then
-settle on a bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of
-publication, but not to the utmost possible extent.
-
 报酬递减原理也适用于版权交易，如同它适用于任何其他购买行为。我们应当最先卖出的自由是那些使我们失去得最少的那部分自由，并且这部分自由的牺牲能够换取对作品出版的最大激励。随着我们继续卖出的自由越来越关乎自身核心利益，我们将会发现每一笔新的交易相对于上一笔都是更大的牺牲，同时它们所能带来的出版活力增量越来越小。而当这种增量远未减到零之前，我们就会说不值得为之付出不断增加的代价；而后我们将会达成某种交易，其最终结果是增加了出版量，但并未达到可能的极限程度。
 
-Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser,
-more advantageous bargains in advance—it dictates that the public must
-cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little
-more publication.
-
 将最大化出版量作为最终目标将会预先拒绝所有这些更加明智、更加有利的交易方式——它强制规定公众必须出卖几乎全部自由来使用出版作品，而仅仅是为了换取一点点出版量的增加。
 
-### The Rhetoric of Maximization {#the-rhetoric-of-maximization .subheading}
-
 ### 具有欺骗性的最大化
 
 In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost