Incremental update

Updated 3 errors

1 files changed, 178 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
index 09ca0b2..e5438c8 100644
--- a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
+++ b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ States copyright law: the US Constitution.
 
 ### Copyright in the US Constitution {#copyright-in-the-us-constitution .subheading}
 
+### 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
@@ -47,19 +49,33 @@ 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,
@@ -68,13 +84,20 @@ 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.
 
-@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 2002, 2003,
-2007, 2009–2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\
- {This essay was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2002. This
-version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+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
@@ -85,11 +108,22 @@ 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.
 
+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
@@ -101,8 +135,17 @@ 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。为了更好地反应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。
+
 ### The First Error: “Striking a Balance” {#the-first-error-striking-a-balance .subheading}
 
+### 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
@@ -110,12 +153,21 @@ 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
@@ -126,6 +178,12 @@ 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,
@@ -135,6 +193,12 @@ 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.
 
+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
@@ -145,20 +209,38 @@ 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
@@ -170,14 +252,27 @@ 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，他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
@@ -185,26 +280,44 @@ 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.
 
+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.
 
+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
+第二个错误则将他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
@@ -213,6 +326,12 @@ 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
@@ -223,13 +342,27 @@ 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
 to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public
 copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance,
@@ -241,6 +374,15 @@ the publishers is almost the reverse.) This rhetoric directly rejects
 the constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as
 representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.
 
+在实践中，将最大化出版量作为最终目标而全然不顾自由的代价这一理念是由一系
+列具有欺骗性的说法所支撑的。这种说法宣称公众对出版物进行复制的行为是非法、
+不公平、并且本质上错误的。例如，出版商将复制出版物的人们称为“盗版者”，这
+种诽谤性的称谓将与您的邻居分享信息的行为与攻击船只的行为等同起来。（这一
+诽谤性的称谓最初被作者用于描述那些找到了以某种合法方式出版未经授权许可的
+版本的出版商；而它被出版商所使用的现代用法几乎与其原意完全相反。）这种欺
+骗性的说法直接抹杀了版权的宪法基础，而是如同表现美国法律体系中那些公认的
+传统那样呈现其自身。
+
 The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it so pervades the
 media that few people realize how radical it is. It is effective because
 if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never
@@ -249,11 +391,21 @@ In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers
 should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of
 all—“We want to copy”—is disqualified in advance.
 
+“盗版”这一具有欺骗性的说法之所以被普遍接受，是由于它充斥于各种媒体，以至
+于极少有人意识到它到底有多么重要。它是如此地强有力，由于如果由公众进行复
+制是根本非法的，我们将完全不能对抗出版商强制要求我们牺牲自己的自由的行为。
+换言之，当公众被威胁给出理由以证明为何出版商不应获得某些额外权力之时，所
+有理由当中最重要的一条——“我们想要复制”——已经被预先否决了。
+
 This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except
 using side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today
 almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom
 to distribute copies as a legitimate public value.
 
+这封死了通过争论反对与日俱增的版权权力的所有出路，除了一些细枝末节的问题。
+因此，今天对于日益强大的版权权力的反对几乎只能援引一些旁枝问题，并且从来
+不敢援引本应作为一种合法的公众价值的再分发副本的自由。
+
 As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to
 argue that “A certain practice is reducing our sales—or we think it
 might—so we presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount,
@@ -261,8 +413,16 @@ and therefore it should be prohibited.” We are led to the outrageous
 conclusion that the public good is measured by publishers’ sales: What’s
 good for General Media is good for the USA.
 
+从实践角度讲，出版量最大化这一最终目标使得出版商可以如此论述：“某种行为正
+在削减我们的销量——或者我们认为它将会这样——因此，我们假定它使得出版量下降
+了一定的未知数量，因此它应当被禁止。”我们将会得到这样一种不可容忍的结论：
+公众的利益应当以出版商的销量来衡量，大凡对大众媒体公司有利的东西，对美国
+也都是好的。
+
 ### The Third Error: Maximizing Publishers’ Power {#the-third-error-maximizing-publishers-power .subheading}
 
+### 第三个错误：最大化出版商的权力
+
 Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of
 maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer
 that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers—making
@@ -272,16 +432,30 @@ goal, which entails the abolition of “fair use” and the “right of first
 sale,” is being pressed at every available level of government, from
 states of the US to international bodies.
 
+一旦出版商得到了这样的许可，即为了达到出版输出最大化的政策目标可以不计任
+何代价，它们的下一步就是推断出这需要赋予它们最大可能的权力——使得版权覆盖
+对于一篇作品的任何可想象的使用方式，或者应用某些其他法律工具诸如“拆封包装”
+许可证来实现同样的效果。这一目标涉及废除“合理使用”和“首次销售权”，它已经
+被各级政府强制执行，从美国各州到国际机构。
+
 This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the
 creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the
 plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades
 before, so if today’s copyright law had been in effect, his plays would
 have been illegal.
 
+这一步骤是错误的，由于严酷的版权规则阻碍了新的有益作品的创作。例如，莎士
+比亚从其他人于数十年前发布的作品中借用情节用于自己的剧本，因此，如果今天
+的版权法在当时有效，他的剧本将成为非法。
+
 Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless
 of cost to the public, maximizing publishers’ power is the wrong way to
 get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.
 
+即使我们真的想要最大可能的出版量而无视公众为之付出的代价，最大化出版商的
+权力也是达成这一目标的错误方式。作为一种本意在于促进进步的方式，这种做法
+是自相矛盾的。
+
 ### The Results of the Three Errors {#the-results-of-the-three-errors .subheading}
 
 The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader