Challenge to Google Books Is Declined by Supreme Court
著作權纏訟11年 谷歌數位書庫勝訴
By Adam Liptak and Alexandra Alter

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a challenge to Google’s digital library of millions of books, turning down an appeal from authors who said the project amounted to copyright infringement on a mass scale.
美國最高法院周一拒絕讓針對谷歌數位圖書館提出的挑戰敗部復活，駁回了書籍原作者指稱該計畫等同大規模侵犯著作權之上訴案。谷歌數位圖書館已有數百萬冊書。

The Supreme Court’s brief order left in place an appeals court decision that the project was a  “fair use “ of the authors’ work, ending a legal saga that had lasted more than a decade.
最高法院以簡短命令維持了上訴法院的原判，亦即該計畫係「正當使用」原作者的作品。此舉也為歷時十多年的法律界傳奇故事畫下句點。

In 2004, Google started building a vast digital library, scanning and digitizing more than 20 million books from the collections of major research libraries. Readers can search the resulting database, Google Books, for keywords or phrases and read some snippets of text.
谷歌2004年開始打造一個龐大的數位圖書館、將各大研究圖書館收藏的逾2000萬本書籍加以掃描並數位化。讀者可以用關鍵字或短語搜尋網上資料庫─Google圖書，並閱讀到文本的部分片段。

The Authors Guild and several writers sued Google in 2005, saying the digital library was a commercial venture that drove down sales of their work. In their petition seeking Supreme Court review, they said “this case represents an unprecedented judicial expansion of the fair-use doctrine that threatens copyright protection in the digital age.”
美國作家協會與數名作者在2005年時控告谷歌，指稱該數位圖書館是個拉低他們作品銷量的商業投資活動。在他們在爭取最高法院重審的請願書中，他們說：「此案代表司法前所未見地擴張了正當使用原則，而這對數位時代的著作權保護構成威脅。」

The petition to the Supreme Court also included a brief signed by a group of prominent authors, including the playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Taylor Branch and the novelists Margaret Atwood, J.M. Coetzee, Peter Carey and Ursula K. Le Guin.
這項向最高法院提出的請願書包含一份由一群著名作家簽署的摘要，這些人包括劇作家東尼．庫許納、歷史學家泰勒．布蘭奇跟小說家瑪格麗特．阿特伍德、柯慈、彼得．凱瑞以及娥蘇拉．勒瑰恩。

“Fair use is not easy and never has been,” the brief stated. “The unprecedented scale of the Google Library Book Project, by itself, warrants a reconsideration of fair use in this case.”
摘要中陳述道：「公平使用並非易事，而且一向如此。谷歌圖書館圖書計畫規模空前之大，僅此一點即使重新考慮本案件中之正當使用有其必要。」

In a statement released Monday, the Authors Guild said that the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case would leave writers vulnerable to copyright infringement. It also suggested the case would have broader impact beyond the book industry.
美國作家協會在周一發表的聲明中表示，最高法院決定不審理此案件將讓作家著作權易受侵犯。聲明中還指出，此案之影響將不僅及於圖書出版產業。

“The denial of review is further proof that we’re witnessing a vast redistribution of wealth from the creative sector to the tech sector, not only with books, but across the spectrum of the arts,” the guild’s president, the novelist Roxana Robinson, said in the statement.
協會主席、小說家蘿珊娜．魯賓遜在聲明中說：「拒絕重審進一步證明，我們正目睹從創意部門轉向科技部門的巨大財富重分配現象，不僅止於圖書出版業，而是遍及整個藝術界。」

In its own Supreme Court brief, Google said both readers and writers were better off thanks to its efforts. “Google Books gives readers a dramatically new way to find books of interest,” the brief said. “By formulating their own text queries and reviewing search results, users can identify, determine the relevance of and locate books they might otherwise never have found.”
谷歌則在提交最高法院的摘要中表示，讀者與作家們都因他們的努力而受惠。摘要中並寫道：「Google圖書提供讀者一種尋找感興趣書籍的全新方式。藉由制定自己的文本查詢與審視搜尋結果，使用者可辨識、決定書籍的相關性，並找到他們原本可能永遠找不到的書籍。」

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/technology/google-books-case.html

2016-05-08/聯合報/D2版/紐約時報賞析 陳韋廷譯

說文解字看新聞 陳韋廷

美國最高法院今年4月拒絕受理美國作家協會控告谷歌侵犯著作權的上訴請求，此一裁決為歷經10多年的侵權訴訟案畫下句點，而谷歌的勝訴也代表該公司可以繼續推動數位圖書館計畫，藏書量亦將增加，而且不用付費給著作者。

這起糾紛肇因於谷歌在2004年宣布掃描全世界的書籍，但自此以後，該公司便陷入了作家與出版商（publisher）發起的各種著作權官司。著作權屬於智慧財產權（intellectual property right）的一種，而智慧財產權則是為了保護創作發明人權益，以法律所創設的一種權利。此外，文中提及之合理使用原則（fair-use doctrine）是法律原則，也是判斷是否侵權的核心標準。guild意指同業公會，是由從事同一產業人員所組成，如烘烤師協會（roasters guild）、電影攝影師協會（cinematographers guild）等。

最後要注意的是，review在文中是指「重審」的意思，並非複習或是審查等一般常見中文意思，而第二段片語leave something in place則指的是「使某事物維持不變」之意。例：The high court left in place an October 2015 ruling.（高等法院維持2015年10月的判決。）

No Phones for You! Chic Businesses Are Abandoning Landlines
紐約時髦商圈 揚棄室內電話
By Alex Williams

To New Yorkers, greater Mulberry Street is typically considered NoLIta, unless it’s northern Chinatown, or to those old enough to remember Sinatra at the Paramount, Little Italy.
紐約客通常把墨貝理街和周邊一帶稱為諾利塔區（NoLIta，North of Little Italy，小義大利北邊之意），另外也有人稱它唐人街北部，而那些年紀大到還記得法蘭克辛納屈在派拉蒙劇院獻藝的人，則喚它小義大利區。

Maybe now it’s time to scrap those distinctions and give it a new nickname: NoPho, for no phones.
也許現在該扔掉這些不同的稱呼，給它個新別號了：且叫它NoPho，沒有電話（no phones）。

Want to call and check if Han Kjobenhavn, the Euro-chic boutique, has that electric blue “strangle knit” sweater in a medium? You’re out of luck. See how long the wait is going to be at the Aussie-chic cafe Two Hands? No chance. Find out what color of hoodies are in stock at the flagship of skater-influenced-fashion label Noah? Better wander on over, lazy boy.
想要打電話問問歐洲時尚精品店Han Kjobenhavn有沒有中號的電光藍「緊織」毛衣？你真不走運。想要知道到澳洲時髦餐廳Two Hands用餐得等多久？門兒都沒有。想查看滑冰選手風格的時尚品牌Noah旗艦店的連帽T恤現貨有哪些顏色？最好親自走一趟，懶傢伙。

“I don’t need it, so I don’t have it,” said Brendon Babenzien, Noah’s owner, referring to a landline phone in the store during a call that took several days to arrange. “I don’t have a landline at home, either.”
Noah老闆布蘭登．巴班齊恩說：「我用不著，所以沒有。」他指的是店裡的室內電話，在花了幾天安排才通上話的電話中說。「我家裡也沒裝室內電話。」

It is no secret that tweens and millennials long ago decided that person-to-person phone calls were decidedly retro, and not in that fashionable old-Dylan-vinyl-albums way.
青少年和千禧世代早就認定指定接聽人的叫人電話是十足的老派，這已是人盡皆知，而且不是鮑比狄倫老黑膠唱片那種時髦的復古風。

And cellphones have made landlines at home redundant for many. As of last year, only about half of American households had a landline, compared with about 90 percent in 2004, according to government data compiled by Statista, a statistics database.
而且對很多人來說，有了行動電話，家中的室內電話變得多餘。根據統計資料庫Statista彙編的政府資料，去年約只有一半美國家庭裝有室內電話，而2004年約有九成。

It’s different for businesses, which presumably want to keep as many channels of potential customer interaction open as possible. Even online behemoths like Zappos have made their live call centers a cornerstone of their business (their parent company, Amazon, less so).
商家則不同，商家理應保留越多與潛在顧客互動的管道越好。即便像Zappos網路鞋店這樣的網路巨擘，都把現場客服中心當成業務的基石（他們的母公司亞馬遜依賴程度較低）。

But in an era of Google Maps, Yelp and OpenTable, restaurant telephones these days in particular often seem almost atavistic, functioning as little more than life-support systems for voice mail sinkholes that no one ever seems to check, as countless diners can attest.
然而現在已是Google地圖、商店評論網站Yelp和餐廳訂位網站OpenTable的時代，當下餐廳電話尤其經常顯得幾乎屬於上一個時代，充其量只能充當沒有人查看大量語音郵件時的生命維持系統，這有無數客人可作證。

At least some forward-thinking proprietors prefer the online algorithms to handle the busywork – reservations, directions – so they can carve out time to run a restaurant.
至少一些思想前進的經營者偏好以網路演算法來處理繁忙的業務－訂位、指點方向－以便找出時間好好經營餐廳。

“Our restaurants are chef-owned and operated, so we do more cooking, shopping and cleaning than phone answering,” said Jody Williams, a partner at the critically lauded (and phone-free) West Village restaurant Via Carota. “If you want to know if you left your umbrella behind, email please.”
備受推崇（而且沒裝室內電話）的西村Via Carota餐廳的合夥人裘蒂．威廉斯說：「我們的餐廳由廚師當老闆和經營，因此我們多半在做菜、採買和清掃，較少接電話。你若想知道有沒有把傘忘在這兒，請寫電郵。」

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/fashion/phones-businesses-landline.html

2016-05-08/聯合報/D2版/紐約時報賞析 田思怡譯