评论
打印
The Internet Archive’s lending program, developed long before the pandemic, involved scanning physical books and offering them to readers in its Open Library, a practice called controlled digital lending.
互联网档案馆的借阅项目早在疫情暴发之前就有了，纸质图书被扫描后提供给“开放图书馆”的读者阅读，这种做法被称为可控数字借阅。
One reader at a time could borrow each scanned book.
一次只有一个读者可以借阅一本扫描的书。
If the library or one of its partners had two copies, two readers at a time could borrow it.
如果开放图书馆或它的合作伙伴有两份扫描件，那么一次有两名读者可以借阅。
The archive defended making its own e-books by citing fair use, a broad legal concept that permits copyrighted material to be quoted and excerpted, and the first-sale doctrine: It could do what it wanted with its own books.
档案馆援引“合理使用”原则来为自己制作电子书辩护，这是一个宽泛的法律概念，允许有版权的材料被引用和摘录，也认可首次销售原则：可以任意使用自己拥有的书籍。
No dice, wrote Judge John G. Koeltl of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
但曼哈顿地区法院的法官约翰·G. 科特尔写道：想都别想。
His decision granting summary judgment for the publishers in March went far beyond the pandemic library.
今年3月，他同意出版商的申请，做出了简易判决，判决内容远远超出了疫情期间的图书馆的范畴。
Any benefit for research and cultural participation, he said, was outweighed by harm to the publishers’ bottom line.
他称，对研究和文化参与的任何益处都比不上对出版商利润的损害。
The Internet Archive lost its court battle at a moment of rising concern about whether tech, entertainment and media companies are up to the job of maintaining the public’s access to a wide-ranging culture.
互联网档案馆在法庭上败诉之际，人们也越来越担心科技、娱乐和媒体公司是否有能力维护公众使用各种文化的权益。
Warner Bros. Discovery, for example, wanted to scale back its Turner Classic Movies cable channel, a citadel of cinema history and art.
例如，华纳兄弟探索公司想要缩小其特纳经典电影有线电视频道的规模，该频道是电影史和艺术的坚固堡垒。
It was stopped by an uproar.
这一计划引起一片哗然并最终叫停了。
New technology means culture is delivered on demand, but not all culture.
新技术意味着文化是按需提供的，但不是所有文化都如此。
When Netflix shipped DVDs to customers, there were about 100,000 to choose from.
当网飞向客户推出DVD光盘时，有大约10万张DVD可供选择。
Streaming, which has a different economics, has reduced that to about 6,600 U.S. titles.
而流媒体有着不同的经济原理，流媒体将这一数字减少到约6600部美国电影。
Most are contemporary.
大多数电影都是当代作品。
Only a handful of movies on Netflix were made between 1940 and 1970.
网飞上只有少数电影是在1940年至1970年之间制作的。
Libraries have traditionally been sanctuaries for culture that could not afford to pay its own way, or that was lost or buried or didn’t fit current tastes.
图书馆一直以来是文化的避难所，这些文化负担不起传播费用，或者是被遗失和埋藏，或者是不符合当下品味。
But that is at risk now.
但这种情况现在面临危险。
Jason Schultz, director of New York University’s Technology Law & Policy Clinic, said: “The permanence of library collections may become a thing of the past.
纽约大学科技法律与政策讲习班主任贾森·舒尔茨说：“图书馆藏书的永久性可能会成为过去。
If the platforms decide not to offer the e-books or publishers decide to pull them off the shelves, the reader loses out.
如果平台决定不提供电子书，或者出版商决定将电子书下架，读者就会蒙受损失。
This is similar to when songs you look for on Spotify are blanked out because the record company ended the license or when movies or television shows cycle off Netflix or Amazon."
这就类似于你在Spotify上寻找歌曲，然后发现因为唱片公司终止许可，这些歌无法播放，或者网飞和亚马逊上的电影和电视节目停止播放。”
